4 ms·
This is tricky. It feels like it's an obvious conflict of interest. But if the researchers are free to do real science, no strings attached, this seems like a g
by buffington 2y ago
This is tricky. It feels like it's an obvious conflict of interest. But if the researchers are free to do real science, no strings attached, this seems like a good thing.
Even with no strings attached, it's hard to trust PMI. Imagine the researchers discovered, with data to prove it, that PMI's new smokeless tech truly did make PMI's products safe. I doubt anyone would trust it.
But if the research discovered that smokeless tech was worse, with data to prove it, I suspect it'd be a lot easier to trust.
- actionfromafar 2y agoOr would it just be a ruse to keep selling smokes? I dunno…
- buffington 2y agoExactly. Even if PMI wants to truly support real research, and is willing to accept the findings - their name attached alone casts doubt on any of those findings.
- tpoacher 2y agoI find it interesting how the same miasma doesn't apply to governments dictating specific funding council areas of focus, but yet we're so skeptical when a company provides funding, and with less restrictions. edit: ah, nevermind, I thought pmi was acknowledged in the research, but the article states it wasn't. which changes the story. though above point also still stands I guess.
- alan-hn 2y agoAre governments profiting from a technology or treatment? PMI profits off the the smokeless tech
- tpoacher 2y ago"Tech" is a very narrow interpretation, though even then I suppose it depends on the tech (e.g. surveillance, or combat readiness). But, in general, governments prioritising funding for research aimed at getting backing for planned policies down the line is a very real thing, yes.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]