for example, for decades the sugar companies tried to get researchers to say that sugar is good for you. they often paid for research but the researchers had integrity and found that sugar had no nutritious value and could be dangerous to people. finally, after spending lots of money, the sugar companies found what they wanted: researchers who could be bought. naturally, US society had to change into its currently dominant social darwinist form before the sugar companies hit pay dirt in the "scientific" community.
R
from PR Watch:
WHEN PEER REVIEW YIELDS UNSOUND SCIENCE
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/11/health/policy/11DOC.html?ex=1024815781&ei =1&en=bb8a3aca209fabf6
As we report in our book Trust Us, We're Experts, 'peer review' is
a process "in which panels of experts are convened to pass
judgement on the work of other researchers. ... In theory, the
process of peer review offers protection against scientific errors
and bias. In reality, it has proven incapable of filtering out the
influence of governmental and corporate funders, whose biases often
affect research outcome." Lawrence K. Altman examined the issue in
the aftermath of a recent meeting and "the news was grim.
Researchers reported considerable evidence that many statistical
and methodological errors were common in published papers and that
authors often failed to discuss the limitations of their findings.
Even the press releases that journals issue to steer journalists to
report peer reviewed papers often exaggerate the perceived
importance of findings and fail to highlight important caveats and
conflicts of interest."
SOURCE: New York Times, June 11, 2002 More web links related to this story are available at: http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2002.html#1023768000
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020612/4d062694/attachment.htm>