3 ms·
It is interesting that this PR pre-empts the natural takeaway many would have — eating more dairy or red meat — by reductively representing the options as “chee
by odyssey7 3y ago
It is interesting that this PR pre-empts the natural takeaway many would have — eating more dairy or red meat — by reductively representing the options as “cheeseburgers” and “pizza.”
Checking out the research paper[1], the competing interests section declares that Chen “has patents pending on TVA and TVA derivatives.”
I don’t think the underlying reasoning is incorrect, but the way it’s presented is interesting.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06749-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06749-3
- jdkee 3y ago"the competing interests section declares that Chen “has patents pending on TVA and TVA derivatives.”" That basically destroys his credibility on the topic.
- hilux 3y agoI think that's going a bit far. Technology commercialization by universities is the way any academic research (potentially, eventually) reaches the public, and it's quite normal for the original researchers to be involved in the commercialization venture, as advisers, or as CEO. They know the topic best.
- Root_Denied 3y agoI agree - in cases like this patents are a large part of the motivation behind studying the thing in question, if they didn't have patents they wouldn't do the research. It's up to peer review and replication studies to confirm any effects. Even if there weren't any credibility issues with a piece of research this would be true.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI think it confers credibility on the topic. It is what you would expect if they actually believe it has therapeutic potential. I would be more skeptical if they made claims about benefit but we're taking no Acton to commercialize or protect it