Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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This discussion has been archived.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 kaszz on Monday May 08 2017, @10:42PM (3 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Monday May 08 2017, @10:42PM (#506638) Journal

    I would be even harsher on that point and say that there is no settled science. Just more or less settled.
    People are even prepared to bet their life on airplanes with a 1:10 000 000 chance to crash where everybody on board dies. Still commercial airplanes are considered to be "safe".

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday May 09 2017, @12:40AM (2 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @12:40AM (#506680) Journal

    People are even prepared to bet their life on airplanes with a 1:10 000 000 chance to crash where everybody on board dies. Still commercial airplanes are considered to be "safe".

    "Safe" is relative. You're significantly more likely to be killed in a car crash or as a pedestrian involved in a car crash. You're more likely to be killed in an explosion, mauled to death by a wild animal, killed by a dog bite, or struck by lightning than to die in a plane crash. Sounds pretty "safe" to me.

    On the other hand, I bet my life every day on the fact that the law of reflection continues to operate consistently in my car mirrors. I'd say that's pretty darn "settled science."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:47AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:47AM (#506747)

      Duh that's common sense, not science. Like the earth being round and the planets orbiting the Sun.