What do you think? I personally have no problem with corporate funding for an event so long as the sponsors don't have a say in the topics presented, speakers invited, etc.
Now, corporate sponsorship of research is another matter entirely. That must be disclosed and any results from that research group verified with repetition of the experiments by an independent, outside lab. Even the best-intentioned researchers can unconsciously bias the results to favor those who provide a means for them to do their work. Numerous studies have shown this; it's why I champion federal, tax-payer funding for research.
“We should acknowledge the elephant in the room” one panelist said.
Last week I attended a half-day event put on by Scientific American. The topic was media coverage of scientific topics and the “elephant” was the event’s corporate sponsorship. The sponsors were Johnson & Johnson and GMO Answers, a website funded by The Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes leading agricultural companies such as BASF, Bayer, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto, and Syngenta. GMO Answers is run by Ketchum, the public relations firm known for its work promoting the agriculture industry. Many on social media expressed disapproval with the funding of the event. How could Scientific American host such a biased event? many wondered. But is the sponsorship of such an event inherently problematic? The discussion raised questions about the appropriate role of private sector funding for scientific events and for scientific research. Let’s dive into the challenges of private sector funding of science. Here goes.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
"Even the best-intentioned researchers can unconsciously bias the results to favor those who provide a means for them to do their work. Numerous studies have shown this; it's why I champion federal, tax-payer funding for research."
Really? I would enjoy reading this numerous studies that you mention. Please provide specifics. Tax-payer funder research would provide the same "unconscious" bias that you decry in your statement. What makes you think that tax-payer funded research is as pure as driven snow? For starters review the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male."
