Re: Have You Had Your Yearly Eye Exam?
- From: W.M.McKee <wmmckee@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:08:36 -0400
On 16 Jul 2006 10:43:51 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
But lawyers are often not scientists, so sometimes what you do is to
omit the important finding from the abstract which is contrary to your
sponsor's interests, and to make it more obviously implied by the
results than making a quite explicit statement in the text of the
paper. That way the company lawyers are happy because you haven't
obviously dissed their product or marketing stance, and your fellow
scientists are quite able to see what you really mean :-(
Sometimes the company lawyers can see quite clearly what you're up to,
sympathise as fellow professionals who object to the bosses thinking
they've bought the consciences of their employees, and simply ask that
you conceal your unpleasant finding only just well enough that the
company managers won't spot it, assisting you to do so :-)
Hi Chris,
Speaking as a lawyer, I would suggest it is not the lawyers so much
as it is their clients, the companies and marketing execs, who are
interested in putting a favorable spin on things. The lawyers merely
flyspec things as directed by their employers.
Will, T2
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Have You Had Your Yearly Eye Exam?
- From: Chris Malcolm
- Re: Have You Had Your Yearly Eye Exam?
- References:
- Have You Had Your Yearly Eye Exam?
- From: Jennifer
- Re: Have You Had Your Yearly Eye Exam?
- From: Wes Groleau
- Re: Have You Had Your Yearly Eye Exam?
- From: Chris Malcolm
- Have You Had Your Yearly Eye Exam?
- Prev by Date: Products for Diabetics
- Next by Date: Re: Low Sodium Cottage Cheese
- Previous by thread: Re: Have You Had Your Yearly Eye Exam?
- Next by thread: Re: Have You Had Your Yearly Eye Exam?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|