Now, conflicts of interest can obviously make people's decisions about what to pursue and to ignore hazy, and I'd definitely say you have to be up front about them, but that's very different to just ignoring whatever people say
-
-
Show this thread
-
Also, the corollary to this argument is that you can disagree with someone without them being paid by a shadowy organisation Something that a lot of anti-vaccination activists forget
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Lol, agree, but also I’ve never been paid to say anything, & lol to anyone who thinks they can get me to tow a company line. No $$$ could keep my opinions in.
If I wanted to sell myself for $ I’d invent a fake fad diet, starve to prove it & eat money for the rest of my days. -
Yeh that's the other thing - you can be paid BY an organisation without being paid to say anything specifically. I would say it's hard to criticize your employers tho, which definitely makes COIs a necessary declaration
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Indeed. But what are the chances of cooking the books if you have ideological/religious prejudice? Would you trust a Jehovah's Witness scientist on blood science? Especially when the way the accountancy is so obviously flawed?pic.twitter.com/UuONcYYAeC
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And then there’s confirmation bias. When people don’t know if they’re right or wrong or if others are right or wrong and everyone has to go back to the drawing board.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.