No Affiliation

[Ransom Hill Bioscience]

In article <Pine.A41.3.95.971103172831.87606C-100000 at aix1.uottawa.ca>,
	"colossus..." <s535290 at aix1.uottawa.ca> wrote:
>> Either we have integrity as a scientific community, or we do not.
>> If we decide that we do not, then I would like to suggest that 
>> everyone without an affiliation might consider stating it. If we 
>> disallow commercial suppliers from license to ethics, then it might 
>> be good to know that a comment about a technique developed at, say, 
>> University of Alabama, is being commented upon by someone with 
>> "no affiliation" to the University of Alabama.
>
>Michael, 
>
>Your analogy is not quite right.
>
>The difference is that if someone has a kit that they will *sell me* for
>$500, I would rather hear from someone who is *using* the kit and who does
>not work for the company that is *selling* the kit. A company doesn't
>necessarily care about the kit *working for me*, as long as I already paid
>for the kit. If it's a reputable company, they care about satisfying the
>customer, but the customer is "not always right". Most of us have bought
>at least one kit that doesn't deliver the goods and ends up becoming
>wasted money. By contrast, In most cases a researcher that is selling me
>on a technique that they have developed gains nothing financially if it
>doesn't work. If it works they can boast about it to the scientific
>community but there is no direct financial stakes.
> 
>If a company sells me something that doesn't work, they've still got
>my money (unless they are willing to accept that the product doesn't work,
>and that it's not *my* fault that it doesn't work - sure, like that
>happens all the time...).
>
>Companies are in the fringes of the scientific community, where science
>meets business. They are selling goods and money can sometimes bend the
>truth. Sometimes their products are fabulous, sometimes their products do
>not work as advertised. A company's product costs you both time *and*
>money; a non-proprietary technique only costs you time. It's like the
>difference between commercial software and freeware.
>
>I don't think we can confuse the two.
>
>Ed

Nevertheless, Ed, anyone who lacked sufficient ethics to provide you with an honest answer, would also lack the ethics to refrain from adding "no affiliation". So what have you gained?
I am still convinced that the roots of the practice lie in arrogance rather than anything else.

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world" -Mohandas K. Ghandi

Best Regards!
Mike
(affiliation)