Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

UCSF: academic home for conspiracy & anti-vax + Big Pharma more evil than academia?

#1
C C Offline
UCSF: academic home for conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/09/15/ucs...xers-13413

EXCERPT: Being anti-GMO is the biotech equivalent of being anti-vaccine. The scientific literature overwhelmingly and definitively has concluded that GMOs are safe. Vaccines do not cause autism, and GMOs do not cause cancer (or allergies or autoimmune disorders or environmental problems or Indian farmer suicides). Insisting otherwise is now intellectually indefensible.

Yet, the University of California-San Francisco (UCSF) remains a stubborn holdout against reality. UCSF is nothing short of the academic home of the anti-GMO movement. In fact, the university is so dedicated to this position, that it openly collaborates with fringe activists and conspiracy theorists. [...] But it won't stop. UCSF is not accountable to anybody. The university also collaborates with USRTK to run an archive of cherry-picked e-mails and documents that allegedly "expose" industry. Earlier this year, I contacted the university about this, specifically questioning their anti-biotech rhetoric. They responded but refused to answer any of my questions....

MORE: https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/09/15/ucs...xers-13413



Is Big Pharma really more evil than academia?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occa...l-academia

EXCERPT: . . . Yes, academia is cut-throat. There’s a lot of competition for resources and positions, and younger people (and, disproportionately, women), get trampled in the name of Science.

But at least it’s honest bastardry, with pure motives, all for the sake of Science, yes? Senior researchers don’t screw over young researchers, or simply make shit up, for base reasons such as prestige or power, or – Heaven forbid – money, right?

It’s not all bad, for sure. When I interviewed for an academic research position while in the biotech company, the head of the lab asked if I were mad, wanting to leave industry. The 6 years I then spent in his lab were the best of my research career. And one of the most famous cell biologists still alive – Martin Raff – was utterly shocked when I related the authorship fiasco to him.

Nonetheless, I finally left research for good, and went into the private sector. Now I work mainly with pharmaceutical and device companies, and I’m able to compare notes on the two very different worlds.

For the last 18 months or so I’ve been working very closely with people with different roles (medical affairs, marketing, access, etc.) of one particular company. We’ve been preparing for the launch of a new indication for their product, following a phase 3 clinical trial that was terminated early because of overwhelming benefit. The product itself was developed in the company, from scratch, in a programme focused on meeting a particular medical need.

And you have never met such dedicated, driven, hard-working and caring people. For sure, they are well-paid, but I am not convinced that the money can ever make up for the hours they have put in and the stress they have endured.

No. They are determined to see this project through because they believe in the benefits of this drug (extended lifespan, improved quality of that lifespan) for real people in the real world. (And I would not be as personally invested in this project if I wasn’t impressed by the data as well).

People in academic science can be just as avaricious or venal as people in any human endeavour. They are human, after all. The idea, pervasive as it is, that research in academia is somehow more noble or pure than working in the private sector is as outdated as blood-letting.

Yes, pharma has its bad apples. Reps do bad things and unsupportable claims are made. But any transgressions are quickly revealed in the clinic – probably far more quickly than academic research misconduct is noticed, let alone rectified. And of course, the industry is regulated to the nines to try to prevent misconduct – which is far more than can be said for herbalists and the like (or indeed, academic research).

It’s not just a case of pharma being no worse than academia – there are definite positives to pharma....

MORE: https://www.theguardian.com/science/occa...l-academia
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
(Sep 17, 2018 05:45 PM)C C Wrote: UCSF: academic home for conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/09/15/ucs...xers-13413

EXCERPT: Being anti-GMO is the biotech equivalent of being anti-vaccine. The scientific literature overwhelmingly and definitively has concluded that GMOs are safe. Vaccines do not cause autism, and GMOs do not cause cancer (or allergies or autoimmune disorders or environmental problems or Indian farmer suicides). Insisting otherwise is now intellectually indefensible.

Yet, the University of California-San Francisco (UCSF) remains a stubborn holdout against reality. UCSF is nothing short of the academic home of the anti-GMO movement. In fact, the university is so dedicated to this position, that it openly collaborates with fringe activists and conspiracy theorists. [...] But it won't stop. UCSF is not accountable to anybody. The university also collaborates with USRTK to run an archive of cherry-picked e-mails and documents that allegedly "expose" industry. Earlier this year, I contacted the university about this, specifically questioning their anti-biotech rhetoric. They responded but refused to answer any of my questions....

MORE: https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/09/15/ucs...xers-13413

Exactly as I said here: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-6135-p...l#pid23379
Anti-vaxxers are not largely religious. "They are the vegan/vegetarian, no gluten, no processed, organic, no GMOs crowd."
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How journals & academic enablers are corrupting reporting on crop biotechnology C C 0 68 Feb 2, 2024 04:33 AM
Last Post: C C
  Article WHO promotes quackery again + AI use seeps into academic journals C C 1 75 Aug 26, 2023 11:39 PM
Last Post: confused2
  Article Corruption of the academic peer-review process (climate science) C C 4 154 Aug 5, 2023 05:29 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Research finds no gender bias in academic science + WHO's pseudoscience problem C C 0 65 Apr 29, 2023 06:44 PM
Last Post: C C
  How Stanford failed the academic freedom test + Dr. Harriet Hall has passed away C C 1 116 Jan 22, 2023 08:43 AM
Last Post: C C
  Mandated political prerequisites drive Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society C C 0 230 Oct 5, 2022 04:22 AM
Last Post: C C
  Academic freedom on the decline C C 0 64 Mar 3, 2022 06:04 PM
Last Post: C C
  Bad academic writing of the year award C C 0 64 Feb 17, 2022 05:50 PM
Last Post: C C
  Academic ideologues are corrupting STEM (Anna Krylov) C C 0 166 Dec 21, 2021 01:07 AM
Last Post: C C
  The intellectual & moral decline in academic research C C 1 259 Feb 3, 2020 05:14 AM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)