We've gotten some encouraging responses to the ACSH report on Scrutinizing Industry-Funded Science:
¢ ¢ ¢
We seem to agree on the major issues.
My commentaries on this subject add one essential point: focusing on experimenters and analysts rather than on data and methods subverts the very foundations of the scientific process, destroying the single distinguishing factor that has allowed science to achieve progress that no other human endeavor can boast. This misguided focus actually destroys, rather than enhances the quest for objectivity, bringing science down to the level of politics, where subjectivity rules. And we thought the "dark ages" could not occur again in a technological world!
Christopher J. Borgert, Ph.D.
President & Principal Scientist
Applied Pharmacology and Toxicology, Inc.
Borgert has written on the topic of conflicts of interest as well, including in the article "Conflicts of Interest or Contravention of Science" for Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.
¢ ¢ ¢
Your story in your message today about industry collaboration is important. As you know, in my years at the NCI, NIH as Director of the NCI bioassay program, I collaborated a lot with industry colleagues. They understood what the important questions we were asking dealt with and they of immense value to our official program. We, with industry help, were successful, and with colleagues in industry, we published our data in good journals, with their names on the paper.
Collaboration with industry is important. The "environmetal movement" is dangerous to our health and wellbeing.
With all good wishes to all of ACSH.
John H. Weisburger, PhD, MD(hc)
¢ ¢ ¢
Certainly, the defense of scientists who are funded by industry is important.
We also need to go on the attack about the government funding effect, the "consensus" science and bad science promoted under the auspices of federal agencies and with federal funding. The list is long.
John Dale Dunn, MD, JD
See also: ACSH's full report on Scrutinizing Industry-Funded Science by Ron Bailey.