Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents
From: Jerry Dwyer <gdwyer@dwyerecon.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:00:33 -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
>
>.
>
>  
>