re: #51 windsagio

really its the reverse of the normal tactic.

Instead of saying ‘the scientists are just as corrupt as the corporate hacks!’ He’s saying ‘the corporate hacks aren’t corrupt and I don’t think the scientists are either!’

The truth of the matter is, people funded by industry (whether its tobacco or oil/coal/whatever) are fare more likely to corrupt the science than academic researchers. He’s implying equivalence where there simply is none.

Really? I hadn’t ever heard that before. A huge amount of published scientific work is generated through the private sector; most scientists, when taking a job with a private corporation, insist on freedom to publish, and there are typically clauses in their contracts granting this and spelling out the exact limits of proprietary interest that might conflict with it.

But if there have been studies showing that those published, peer-reviewed studies funded by corporations are more likely to be flawed in some way, I’d be fascinated to see them.

Anyway, I didn’t read the post that way; it sounded to me as though he was granting that scientific work isn’t tainted by grants. If the OP could clarify, that might be helpful.