Biotech related extracts from the recent in-depth report about the power of commercial interests within science and technology: Science and the Corporate Agenda, by Stuart Parkinson and Chris Langley of Scientists for Global Responsibility. The report considers how the commercialisation of science "brings with it a wide range of detrimental effects, including bias, conflicts of interest, a narrowing of the research agenda, and misrepresentation of research results. It examines these effects across five sectors: pharmaceuticals; tobacco; military/defence; oil and gas; and biotechnology." For reasons of space and to assist ease of reading, GMWatch has removed the extensive references available in the original report from the extracts below.
EXAMPLE EXTRACTS: The issue of the failure to declare potential conflicts of interest is illustrated by a study of 79 papers in molecular biology (including areas in biotechnology) submitted to the journal Nature in a six-month period in 2005. This study shows that, in two-thirds of the papers in which authors had patent applications or company affiliations which might be considered to present competing financial interests, the authors did not disclose them. Only four papers in the study actually declared that some of the authors had competing financial interests.
SGR's concerns about the power of commercial interests within science and technology have led us to compile an in-depth report - Science and the Corporate Agenda - which assesses the scale of the problems and makes innovative recommendations for solutions.
Science and the Corporate Agenda: the detrimental effects of commercial influence on science and technology. Scientists for Global Responsibility has pdf downloads for the executive summary and full report or to order in text.
Shocking, industry has been buying their own good reviews and using them to get a rubber stamp from their employees on a junket doing regulatory oversight Who'd a thunk it worked that way?
Unfortunately this doesn't surprise me. This reflects badly on all scientists when there are some who can so easily be influenced to get money.
Chick76...This reflects badly on all scientists when there are some who can so easily be influenced to get money.
What is even sadder is that the sell out science is the very tiniest minority of all the scientific voices, but thanks to their corporate backers they carry a loud public voice and lobbying policy clout.
There's a standard astroturf model that was designed by the Tobacco Boys to react to public outrage when Readers Digest published Cancer by the Carton. All the spin science now is the same with the benefit of far more tax free foundations for funding, research, outreach and PR/
Sourcewatch Tobacco explains the game nicely and the players are basically the same. Yes, lying for industry, especially when it threatens human health is unforgivable in any profession.
Is there somewhere we can collect all these stories under a Corporate Dishonesty to Protect or Increase Profits title for easy reference. It would grow daily as we've seen. This crap is often times downright dangerous.
WDH...Is there somewhere we can collect all these stories under a Corporate Dishonesty
There are so many stories and watchdog groups, we have quite a few Newsvine groups that collect the dirty details of these scoundrels and there are oodles of mine tagged corporate-government.
I reckon you could start the list with Fortune 500 and work your way down. It's all about the profit and bottom line not the best product. What annoys me is the science is the loser in the situation all the way around. Good article
I reckon you could start the list with Fortune 500 and work your way down.
It is a wonderful place to start, followed by the offshore and LLC gangs, eh?
Pamela,
Here are some thoughts:
http://rochart.newsvine.com/_news/2009/11/13/3499864-humans-still-evolving-as-our-brains-shrink-
"When you develop agricultural diets, you might need adaptations to survive on them, the way the digestive systems are regulated," Hawks said.
Just to repeat myself, maybe it's the changing genes:
So if human genes are changing as a result of eating more agricultural products if humans change the agricultural products with genetic engineering, gmo, that means the food is changing our genetic code.
Soon monsanto will want an annual fee for your genes.
;^)
Soon monsanto will want an annual fee for your genes.
I was thinking more along the lines of child support and restitution for rape. If they're going to force the genes of the person who is Monsanto into me and alter my children to carry their genetic influence, they've got to owe us. I had to get that out, now I'll go read the link
"Follow the money", has never been truer.
The internet has been a boon to uncovering and publicizing corporate-government shenanigans, but more transparency in both arenas is needed.
It hardly seems unbelievable that there are so few of the dirtbags and so many individuals watching and still the crooks hold the loudest voices and bury so much dirt. Not exactly a Democracy!
Not exactly a Democracy!
True enough.
And, technically a democratic republic (driven by money).
I like to think of it as Corporate Fascism, but by any name it's a dirty game where we people lose.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |