It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Academics who lend their names to medical and scientific articles ghostwritten by the pharmaceutical industry should be charged with fraud under the the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), according to two University of Toronto Faculty of Law professors.
In an article published Tuesday in PLoS Medicine, Professors Simon Stern and Trudo Lemmens argued that, "guest author's claim for credit of an article written by someone else constitutes legal fraud, and may give rise to claims that could be pursued in a class action based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act."
"Guest authorship is a disturbing violation of academic integrity standards, which form the basis of scientific reliability," they claimed. "Pharmaceutical sponsors borrow the names of academic experts precisely because of the value and prestige attached to the presumed integrity and independence of academic researchers."
We cannot have an honest educated community, without honest educated professionals to look up to.
The problem is that the military, finance and government all hold it all over academia.
Originally posted by Maxmars
Law professors: Academics 'guest authoring' ghostwritten studies should be charged with fraud
www.rawstory.co m
(visit the link for the full news article)
Academics who lend their names to medical and scientific articles ghostwritten by the pharmaceutical industry should be charged with fraud under the the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), according to two University of Toronto Faculty of Law professors.
Originally posted by Openeye
If economic academics actually sat down and discussed what is in the interest of the humans who live on this planet, rather than do what is in the best interests of their wall street buddies or their own pocket books...we would have a better world.
Again education and cooperation is the key, and we are being stripped of both.
You mean socialization and uniform cooperation is the key.
If these studies, as it suggests, were consensually agreed to between private individuals,then there is nothing anyone can do about it except you educate yourself to discern between the true and the false and not have to rely on the opinion of experts/authorities who are easily corruptible.
Academics who lend their names to ghostwritten studies give false respectability to claims of safety and effectiveness that threaten to undermine the integrity of medical research and patient care, according to Stern and Lemmens. This false respectability extends to the courtroom as well, when the studies are used as evidence in lawsuits to support pharmaceutical companies' claims.
"This is not a random occurrence, but rather a repeating, planned scenario in which drugs, discovered with good science for a specific set of patients, are marketed to a larger population as necessary, beneficial and safer than other alternatives," Howard Brody, a professor and director of the Institute for the Medical Humanities at UTMB Health and co-author of the study, said.
You don't go after people who wish to put food on their table.You may hold it to be unethical, and maybe it is, but it should not be illegal and legislation is not for deciding moral questions.
So, in short, it's the personal responsibility of each individual to cultivate himself
Originally posted by Openeye
Cooperation is different, it means people working together. They may have different points of view, different solutions but they have a common goal. This is where democracy takes place.
They are lying...and getting away with it.
Where do we get scientific data? Where do we get medical information? From experts...right? So you are saying that we cannot trust experts and must educate ourselves in the manner physicists, doctors, and economists do? You do realize this is an impossibility for most people on the planet. While many can grasp concepts and theories only a small percentage has the capability of being on par with university educated academics. This has little to do with intelligence, the reasons behind it are varied.
If they are putting that food on the table through subversion and the blood of patients that your drugs did not work on. . .
But people can be deceived by those with expertise, through in which all knowledge stems from...
It's not impossible-- again, making choices requires a set of values, and these choices require trade-offs; each producing their own consequences but ultimately your choices are upto you and your individual experiences. If you're more intelligent/learned, you make better choices, which provides the incentive to be intelligent/learned. So, no, that's not true that you get information from experts-- you assume their experience based on authority and hope it applies to your immediate conditions. That is expedient thinking, not critical thinking. As Richard Feynman said, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
That is real science. What you describe is cargo cult science.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
Unfortunate, but again, it's your duty as an individual to research and make choices. If x is marketed as doing z and doesn't do z, you can't just go after them-- they didn't put a gun to your head and require you to purchase their product. That's the difference.