3 ms·

I see very little of that as unethical. What is objectionable about researching one's opponent and try to discern his weaknesses? What is objectionable about

by wtbob 13y ago

I see very little of that as unethical. What is objectionable about researching one's opponent and try to discern his weaknesses? What is objectionable about mocking someone who is a risk to one? What is wrong with paying someone to write an article? That is wrong with trying to trick one's opponent into tripping? I am slightly troubled by their use of Google keyword searches. I'll note that the Left didn't have those concerns with their 'smirking chimp' campaign. Frankly, from the article Hayes appears to be either his own worst or second-worst enemy. One can either try to win a chess game or upend the board, but one can't choose to upend the board and then try to maintain one's dignity. Edit: I forgot one important point. The items you mentioned overlook one very key issue: is atrazine actually net harmful? That's the only real question. If it is, then its makers have a duty to cease production; if it is not then they have a duty to continue. If it is net-positive, then it is _good_ for them to discredit someone who opposes it, since by definition his course of action will be net negative.

dontusually2 13y ago
The article refers to a growing body of research supporting Hayes, yes.
zaroth 13y ago
Let me try to explain to your why it's unethical to behave this way. You don't attack the messenger, you attack the message, and you do it with better science. No, it's not OK to bring the fight to the gutter if an honest man is making an honest attempt to follow the science. An ethical response to a challenge from the scientific community on the efficacy or safety of your product is never a win-at-all-costs response. When a scientist is researching your product, unless you can show the research itself is a fraud, the only acceptable response is to accept or further the research. An ideal response is not only to pour funding into furthering the research, it's to work alongside the other team collaboratively in doing so. The ethics don't change depending on whether atrazine is actually net harmful. The only way to determine if atrazine is net harmful is through research exactly like this. We need this kind of research to happen, or net harmful chemicals will remain in use. Remember, Tyrone Haze starting his research on atrazine because Syngenta asked him to. From that point forward he was performing a public service. Hope this helps you understand why it's NOT acceptable for companies to behave like this.
- chii 13y ago
  when the real possibility that your company's product is harmful, or detrimental to the environment, you could use your resources to continue researching it, at the cost of losing your profitability, or use your resources to vilify the researcher and stop the research from going, and continue to gain profit selling the product. A human would feel guilt. A corporation would feel nothing, except for the sound of money.
- wtbob 13y ago
  > No, it's not OK to bring the fight to the gutter if an honest man is making an honest attempt to follow the science. You're assuming that he's an honest man. He could be a dishonest man. He could be crazy. He could be persecuted, and still have a persecution complex.

by wtbob 13y ago

dontusually2 13y ago

The article refers to a growing body of research supporting Hayes, yes.

zaroth 13y ago

Let me try to explain to your why it's unethical to behave this way. You don't attack the messenger, you attack the message, and you do it with better science. No, it's not OK to bring the fight to the gutter if an honest man is making an honest attempt to follow the science. An ethical response to a challenge from the scientific community on the efficacy or safety of your product is never a win-at-all-costs response. When a scientist is researching your product, unless you can show the research itself is a fraud, the only acceptable response is to accept or further the research. An ideal response is not only to pour funding into furthering the research, it's to work alongside the other team collaboratively in doing so. The ethics don't change depending on whether atrazine is actually net harmful. The only way to determine if atrazine is net harmful is through research exactly like this. We need this kind of research to happen, or net harmful chemicals will remain in use. Remember, Tyrone Haze starting his research on atrazine because Syngenta asked him to. From that point forward he was performing a public service. Hope this helps you understand why it's NOT acceptable for companies to behave like this.

chii 13y ago
when the real possibility that your company's product is harmful, or detrimental to the environment, you could use your resources to continue researching it, at the cost of losing your profitability, or use your resources to vilify the researcher and stop the research from going, and continue to gain profit selling the product. A human would feel guilt. A corporation would feel nothing, except for the sound of money.
wtbob 13y ago
> No, it's not OK to bring the fight to the gutter if an honest man is making an honest attempt to follow the science. You're assuming that he's an honest man. He could be a dishonest man. He could be crazy. He could be persecuted, and still have a persecution complex.