[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/1/2010 7:52:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk writes:


> WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 10/31/2010 9:38:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
> > jayvdb at gmail.com writes:
> > 
> > 
> > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM,  <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
> > > > In a message dated 10/31/2010 7:10:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > > > risker.wp at gmail.com writes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> My point still stands. The drug company *always* pays for the 
> research.
> > > >> Mentioning it is irrelevant to the quality of the article itself.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is false.  The drug company does not always pay for research on 
> a
> > > > drug.
> > > 
> > > drug companies use a random chemical compound generator? >>
> > > 
> > 
> > John, your response is a bit odd.
> > What does a random chemical compound generator have to do whatsoever 
> with 
> > who funded a study?
> > It's a complete non-sequitor.
> > 
> I believe that his point is that drug companies do their own research into 
> new drugs, pay for the clinical trials, and pay to bring it to market. 
> That is where the upfront costs are. Subsequently other companies may generate 
> research purporting that their formulation is better, other company may 
> refute that etc.
> Perhaps some study reports that their are some long term affects or 
> whatever. 
> 
> At the end of the day the FDA, NIHCE or some body will make a decision on 
> the evidence available. If a company has suppressed information they are 
> probably DOOMED, up shit creek without a paddle, in for heavy fines and 
> payouts of $millions in compensation.
> 
> In the meanwhile wikipedia editors playing some funding game which 
> confuses the issue, or gives antagonists a hook to hang their POV off is not 
> helpful. In fact it probably just increases the work load on those trying to 
> maintain a NPOV in the relevant articles. >>
> 

No one disputed that drug companies are required to pay for research when 
they are trying to get a new drug approved.
The statement is dispute however, is where Anne stated that "the drug 
company always pays for research".  This is false.
The correct statement would probably be "the drug company is required to 
pay for research when they are trying to get a new drug approved".
These statements are not equivalent.

There have been plenty of studies on drugs, which were not paid for, by 
anyone with a vested monetary interest in changing the drug's market outlook.
Being flippant as John was, hardly forwards the conversation.

Not qualifying *which* studies were paid for by someone with a vested 
interest, and which were paid for by someone without that interest, degrades our 
articles on drugs.  Whether or not guns kill or people kill does not mean we 
should be taking a moral position on the use to which guns are put.

We are journalists, we are encyclopedists, we are not put here, by God, to 
determine and shape the form of thought in our reader's minds.  We should, 
in my opinion, be giving our readers the benefit of the doubt that they have 
an IQ over 75 and can figure out how to use the information given.  To 
assume that our information is going to be used nefariously and thus that we must 
censor that, is I believe, the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

Rather than limiting what we say, we should expand and explode it to the 
mind where the readers go insane from the sheer overload of detail.
Insanity is our goal.  Not robotism.

W