Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents
From: Jerry Dwyer <gdwyer@dwyerecon.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:57:59 -0500
Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:57:59 -0500
Just a side light.

Companies probably are no better and no worse than researchers in 
general where money isn't even involved in a serious way. When writing 
up results, things that are not entirely consistent with the presented 
results can be explained away -- conclusions that some readers would 
agree with and some not. The not-entirely-consistent results tend to be 
suppressed because they are a distraction.

Research financed by companies actually may be better about disclosure 
because companies are more likely to be sued.

Jerry


Ben Tilly wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:04:01 -0800, Michael R. Bernstein
><webmaven@cox.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 08:59, David N. Welton wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I would posit that the percentage of computer programs that are in a
>>>position to kill people is much smaller than the position of
>>>pharmaceuticals in a position to kill people.
>>>      
>>>
>>Doesn't that make open peer-review *more* important for pharmaceuticals?
>>    
>>
>
>To that end I've heard that several journals recently decided
>that they will NOT accept publications from companies unless
>those companies make available all results from all trials that
>they do.
>
>The selective presentation of information is dangerous to the
>process of science, and companies have strong incentives to
>be very selective about what they present...
>
>Cheers,
>Ben
>
>.
>
>  
>


Just a side light.

Companies probably are no better and no worse than researchers in general where money isn't even involved in a serious way. When writing up results, things that are not entirely consistent with the presented results can be explained away -- conclusions that some readers would agree with and some not. The not-entirely-consistent results tend to be suppressed because they are a distraction.

Research financed by companies actually may be better about disclosure because companies are more likely to be sued.

Jerry


Ben Tilly wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:04:01 -0800, Michael R. Bernstein
<webmaven@cox.net> wrote:
  
On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 08:59, David N. Welton wrote:
    
I would posit that the percentage of computer programs that are in a
position to kill people is much smaller than the position of
pharmaceuticals in a position to kill people.
      
Doesn't that make open peer-review *more* important for pharmaceuticals?
    

To that end I've heard that several journals recently decided
that they will NOT accept publications from companies unless
those companies make available all results from all trials that
they do.

The selective presentation of information is dangerous to the
process of science, and companies have strong incentives to
be very selective about what they present...

Cheers,
Ben

.