If they pay taxes, they deserve to have the rights those taxes pay to protect. As long as there is a corporate income tax, corporations should have free speech rights.
If this was a Republican White House, the story would be mostly tagged "republicans". But because it's a Democratic White House, it's tagged "government". Obviously, this is a story about a Democratic administration, but somehow most of the slashdot readershit is too dumb to believe that it is because of the principles of the Democratic party that this is happening and not despite of them.
Cynicism aside, show me a Democrat who will not vote for a Republican if she gets the nomination. Oh, and show me a Democrat who can gain enough support among Democratic Party primary voters to beat her. As long as voter turn out is as low as it is, "bringing out the vote" will be the way elections are won.
It doesn't cost you $1 to make $1 in donations. If you donate something that retails for $1, it only costs you what your cost is. If you donate a million in software licenses (retail), it costs you almost $0 (assuming the schools to whom you donated would never be able to afford the licenses in the first place). If you see patients for free a during hours when you don't have any appointments scheduled, but your paying patients are charged $200 an hour, then you exchanged your downtime for a $200 write off (or 60 to 80 per hour in reduced tax bill).
Sorry, "others agree with me" is not a counterargument. You haven't addressed any of the actual concerns. In fact, claiming that what's popular is ethical only validates the concern that demanding to know who sponsored the research creates an impetus for quashing legitimate lines of scientific inquiry. This should be a grave concern not only for the pedantic reason such as a wish for a purity of scientific process. As you are probably aware, quashing inquiry into medical efficacy of a certain naturally-occurring substance has resulted in the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Injecting mob-mentality-biased weights into choices of scientific lines of inquiry is very, very dangerous.
Actually, it's an interesting test on its own. It may have accidentally exposed a bias in editorial choices. In fact, if the journals do put any weight on source of funding of the research, can they claim to be "peer-reviewed"?
It would mean that they only give partial consideration based on the peer reviews and give some of consideration's weight to a source of funding.
Further, a case can be made that any journal that requires that all sources of funding be disclosed and yet does not make this requirement clear to its subscribers (and still maintains that it is a "peer-reviewed" publication) is a journal that is committing fraud. By making disclosure of the sourcing of funding a requirement, it makes it part of a pre-screening for review. So it gives some however-justifiable or however-little weight to a consideration which has nothing to do with peers' view on validity of the research.
Another point: omitting a name of one the controversial sponsors of scientifically sound research could be a test for a potential bias in a journal's editorial decisions.
is not being naive because of the very sentence that follows it:
The assumption should be made that there are vested interests on both sides of any controversial scientific issue and the source of funding should not be considered as a data point in evaluating the legitimacy of research
If a journal requires disclosure of funding, then there is no way for a researcher to accept an anonymous contribution and comply with the journal's requirements for publication.
If a technological change in our way of life can release the carbon, then why does everyone insist that there is not technological change which can reduce the carbon? And I don't mean stop the release through alternative energy sources. I mean reduce. Mind you, I am not accepting or denying the premise of AGW. I am asking a different question.
Actually, I think an even stronger statement can be made. I think it is unethical of the journals to require revealing sources of funding before publication. Some scientific inquiry (such as this, for example) may pose undue burden on its sponsors. Requiring that sponsorship be revealed inhibits free scientific inquiry. Consider another hypothetical example: an illicit narcotics distributor may want to sponsor research into the long-term medical effects of some legal drug use vs illegal drug use. If a researcher is required to reveal taking money from such a source of funding, he cannot do so without damaging his reputation. But this prevents honest scientific look at a medically pertinent question because it prevents any kind of funding from being given to qualified researchers who may want to investigate such a question.
In fact, the researchers should be required to reveal their data much more so than they should be required to reveal their source of funding. But this is a requirement that most journals do not have.
Research should be considered on its merit. The assumption should be made that there are vested interests on both sides of any controversial scientific issue and the source of funding should not be considered as a data point in evaluating the legitimacy of research
I'd say it's an indication of interest rather than a conflict of interest. The money is not contingent on the results of the findings. The fact that sponsors have an agenda is not news. Generally, disclosing the source of funding is an expression of gratitude rather than an ethical requirement. If the donors wish to remain anonymous, they should have that prerogative. They are only sponsoring scientific research, after all.
At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure,
square off with this:
The Koch Brothers are cited as a source of Dr. Soon's funding.
Oh, and btw, citing the source of research funding is generally considered a form of thanking the source for the funding rather than a necessary disclosure.
Slashdot Mirror
Shhh. You are ruining the narrative. Quickly, dump something on Fox News or Sarah Palin or you'll lose all credibility.
No, that's up north in the Emerald City.
A politician lied. What are the odds?
Cynics would say that he was naive in believing that he could effect
No, that wouldn't be cynics. That would be his ardent supporters. Cynics would say that he is just another lying politician.
If they pay taxes, they deserve to have the rights those taxes pay to protect. As long as there is a corporate income tax, corporations should have free speech rights.
Why should the government run the economy? They have a name for those types of governments, you know. That name is generally a curse word in the US.
Ha? Bush was essentially a Democrat. Why do you think most Democrats rubber stamped everything he did?
Oh, really? Bush promised INTEGRITY in the White House. Did you dislike that promise?
If this was a Republican White House, the story would be mostly tagged "republicans". But because it's a Democratic White House, it's tagged "government". Obviously, this is a story about a Democratic administration, but somehow most of the slashdot readershit is too dumb to believe that it is because of the principles of the Democratic party that this is happening and not despite of them.
They are just evacuating the state in anticipation of a series of earthquakes. They are looking for as many people to get the hell out as possible.
Cynicism aside, show me a Democrat who will not vote for a Republican if she gets the nomination. Oh, and show me a Democrat who can gain enough support among Democratic Party primary voters to beat her. As long as voter turn out is as low as it is, "bringing out the vote" will be the way elections are won.
I thought the government was supposed to be prohibited from endorsing any religious position. So how is shamanism any different?
It doesn't cost you $1 to make $1 in donations. If you donate something that retails for $1, it only costs you what your cost is. If you donate a million in software licenses (retail), it costs you almost $0 (assuming the schools to whom you donated would never be able to afford the licenses in the first place). If you see patients for free a during hours when you don't have any appointments scheduled, but your paying patients are charged $200 an hour, then you exchanged your downtime for a $200 write off (or 60 to 80 per hour in reduced tax bill).
Sorry, "others agree with me" is not a counterargument. You haven't addressed any of the actual concerns. In fact, claiming that what's popular is ethical only validates the concern that demanding to know who sponsored the research creates an impetus for quashing legitimate lines of scientific inquiry. This should be a grave concern not only for the pedantic reason such as a wish for a purity of scientific process. As you are probably aware, quashing inquiry into medical efficacy of a certain naturally-occurring substance has resulted in the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Injecting mob-mentality-biased weights into choices of scientific lines of inquiry is very, very dangerous.
Actually, it's an interesting test on its own. It may have accidentally exposed a bias in editorial choices. In fact, if the journals do put any weight on source of funding of the research, can they claim to be "peer-reviewed"?
It would mean that they only give partial consideration based on the peer reviews and give some of consideration's weight to a source of funding.
Further, a case can be made that any journal that requires that all sources of funding be disclosed and yet does not make this requirement clear to its subscribers (and still maintains that it is a "peer-reviewed" publication) is a journal that is committing fraud. By making disclosure of the sourcing of funding a requirement, it makes it part of a pre-screening for review. So it gives some however-justifiable or however-little weight to a consideration which has nothing to do with peers' view on validity of the research.
It's 3/1/15... not 4/1/15.
So they are gonna just redirect to Wikipedia? Facts are only as good as editorial discretion.
Another point: omitting a name of one the controversial sponsors of scientifically sound research could be a test for a potential bias in a journal's editorial decisions.
Research should be considered on its merit.
is not being naive because of the very sentence that follows it:
The assumption should be made that there are vested interests on both sides of any controversial scientific issue and the source of funding should not be considered as a data point in evaluating the legitimacy of research
If a journal requires disclosure of funding, then there is no way for a researcher to accept an anonymous contribution and comply with the journal's requirements for publication.
If a technological change in our way of life can release the carbon, then why does everyone insist that there is not technological change which can reduce the carbon? And I don't mean stop the release through alternative energy sources. I mean reduce. Mind you, I am not accepting or denying the premise of AGW. I am asking a different question.
Star Wars took place long, long time ago. So what is this 1973 you are talking about?
Actually, I think an even stronger statement can be made. I think it is unethical of the journals to require revealing sources of funding before publication. Some scientific inquiry (such as this, for example) may pose undue burden on its sponsors. Requiring that sponsorship be revealed inhibits free scientific inquiry. Consider another hypothetical example: an illicit narcotics distributor may want to sponsor research into the long-term medical effects of some legal drug use vs illegal drug use. If a researcher is required to reveal taking money from such a source of funding, he cannot do so without damaging his reputation. But this prevents honest scientific look at a medically pertinent question because it prevents any kind of funding from being given to qualified researchers who may want to investigate such a question.
In fact, the researchers should be required to reveal their data much more so than they should be required to reveal their source of funding. But this is a requirement that most journals do not have.
Research should be considered on its merit. The assumption should be made that there are vested interests on both sides of any controversial scientific issue and the source of funding should not be considered as a data point in evaluating the legitimacy of research
I'd say it's an indication of interest rather than a conflict of interest. The money is not contingent on the results of the findings. The fact that sponsors have an agenda is not news. Generally, disclosing the source of funding is an expression of gratitude rather than an ethical requirement. If the donors wish to remain anonymous, they should have that prerogative. They are only sponsoring scientific research, after all.
At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure,
square off with this:
The Koch Brothers are cited as a source of Dr. Soon's funding.
Oh, and btw, citing the source of research funding is generally considered a form of thanking the source for the funding rather than a necessary disclosure.