Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Monday May 08 2017, @08:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the and-water-is-wet dept.

A soda company sponsoring nutrition research. An oil conglomerate helping fund a climate-related research meeting. Does the public care who's paying for science?

In a word, yes. When industry funds science, credibility suffers. And this does not bode well for the types of public-private research partnerships that appear to be becoming more prevalent as government funding for research and development lags.

The recurring topic of conflict of interest has made headlines in recent weeks. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has revised its conflict of interest guidelines following questions about whether members of a recent expert panel on GMOs had industry ties or other financial conflicts that were not disclosed in the panel's final report.

Our own recent research speaks to how hard it may be for the public to see research as useful when produced with an industry partner, even when that company is just one of several collaborators.

The study found that participants distrusted any research coming from companies, even when produced by a diverse array of companies or in partnership with the government or non-corporate parties. Is this a real threat to science, as government funding of research declines?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday May 08 2017, @09:40PM (1 child)

    by sjames (2882) on Monday May 08 2017, @09:40PM (#506607) Journal

    There's a lot of truth in that. Most of the historically important scientists we read about were gentlemen. That is, the had money, free time, and an education. Some were also professors and so could use the school's resources as well as their own, way back when schools had to compete for students and so needed prestigious research programs since most sports were seen as lower-class.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 08 2017, @11:04PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Monday May 08 2017, @11:04PM (#506651) Journal

    I have noticed the same pattern..
      * Usually have the means of independent subsistence (not necessarily rich)
      * Intellectual parents or upbringing. Alternatively, fluke of nature like Leonardo da Vinci.
      * No wars, famine, disease etc.
      * Freedom of the individual.

    It vaguely relates to the 6 killer apps [soylentnews.org] of western civilization Competition, Science, Property rights, Medicine, Consumerism and Work ethic.