To: RickofEssex
The proper issue is not whether the research was paid for by an interested party, but whether the research was done correctly and the results reported truthfully. That's what peer review is supposed to sort out.
6 posted on
02/21/2004 4:30:36 PM PST by
JoeFromSidney
(All political power grows from the barrel of a gun. -- Mao Zedong. That's why the 2nd Amendment.)
To: JoeFromSidney
Unfortunately, humans being who they are, are susceptible to finding results they hope to find, and a clear conflict of interest like this is cause for skepticism.
10 posted on
02/21/2004 6:09:27 PM PST by
expatpat
To: JoeFromSidney
Joe, you make good points -- scientists' fiscal arrangements should be separable from the quality of their science. However, the article says:
The paper has since been discredited on scientific grounds, but some parents have clung to the findings and health officials say that vaccinations have fallen dangerously low since its publication.
Sounds like their science also was deficient. Although I'd like to see what grounds... just checked a couple of science sites hastily and didn't see it.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson