Class Three/Discuss

From Cyberlaw

1. are you suggesting that industry should not fund research? if so, where is the money going to come from? (4)

What about returning to patronage?

would patronage lead to select few being able to do research?

I suppose that would depend on how much funding was available, but it might be a way to detach scientific research from the requirement of economic viability...

2. Should we distinguish between the publication of erroneous or misleading results and the withholding or screening of unfavorable results? (1)

There seems to be no legitimate reason for the distortion of data to represent unjustified and misleading conclusions. But there seems to be at least one good reason why drug companies might want to screen adverse study results: that’s a bell that can’t be unrung. If an adverse result turns out to be the product of erroneous and/or data the drug’s reputation, and thus economic viability, might be irreparably harmed. So is there way to prevent the former but still make allowances for the latter? Or are they both equally objectionable?

3 Is it appropriate for companies to want to screen research studies evaluating their drugs given that an erroneous or exaggerated adverse study result might irredeemably damage a drug’s reputation? (1) Vote that this question should be asked. Post a brief answer to this question.

4 Please explain what ou mean about the ability to patent "animals". Does anyone have a patent on a zebra, for instance? (1)

only a genetically modified zebra. e.g. a genetically modified mouse created as a cancer model is patentable subject matter

Dan: I assume this refers to non-natural species, such as those that have been produced by genetic engineering. For example, the Oncomouse ("Harvard Mouse"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_mouse

5 Regarding advisory committees: there are so many nuances. We do want expertise, and yet I imagine there is a web and not linear interest relationship. Is the egg man really disinterested in bacon? (1)

6 you seem to be suggesting that corportations are interested in research in a way that is unsavory. But how else would science be initiated but for interested researchers with an end in mind? (1)

7 a possible larger bias: academic emphasis to publish at all costs -- there are two publishable results: either the drug is great or the drug is dangerous. (subconscious bias to arrive at either pole) (0)

8 Are financial conflicts of interest such a problem? Aren't the experts who have these ties the kind of people who subscribe to high standards of professional ethics - such that the ties are overcome? (0)

9 since we've basically assumed that you cannot separate politics from science, aren't a lot of your complaints just based on which party is in power? isn't that a consequence of our majority rule sys? (0)

10 Is the goal of the adversary system really to get at the truth, as claimed, or is to win (with truth as an incidental byproduct)? (0)

11 Though not directly tied to public shareholders, should publicly funded research be responsible to the population as a whole and pursue economically viable (cost-justified) research? (0)