This is a question posed to Edthye London by skeptics of her work. London is a researcher from my alma mater. She has been targeted on two fronts in recent days. The first from animal rights extremists: her home has been both flooded and later fire bombed. The other side is going at her for taking tobacco industry money to pay for her research on addiction--specifically nicotine and children.
In the LA Times, state senator Leland Yee suggests it is inevitable that London's research is biased and flawed because of the financial relationship:
"It is absolutely outrageous to see this kind of funding and this type of
research within the UC system," said Yee, a psychologist. "The fact that a piece
of research is funded by the tobacco industry, and their singular issue is how
to sell cigarettes, taints the results of whatever the findings might be."
Surely Yee has accepted political donations for his numerous campaigns for office. His comments suggest that he is beholden to them since he has accepted their money, no?
A review of his fundraising through the CA Secretary of State indicates he has accepted donations from casinos, alcohol distributors, and the like. Holding himself to London's standard, Yee implies every piece of legislation he sponsors in those industries will serve those financial backers' ends. Of course, this is a ridiculous notion.
And yet, London is indicted for accepting money from big tobacco.
Is an insurance company an worse? Blue Shield has given money to both Yee and the University of California for research purposes. His money is clean, but the University's is dirty?
And watch out! Xerox has begun to sponsor medical research. The horror. The horror....
No comments:
Post a Comment