Originally posted by sonhouse
Big sugar biased reports but their was still intent to defraud, they did everything they could to maximize the sale of sugar.
But that does not mean that the scientists involved were acting fraudulently. The scientists may have been acting in good faith - it is just that their findings were biased to a particular view point ie they found things wrong with fat (true) but didn't do similar studies for sugar.
Somewhat like the frauds committed by big tobacco, hiring scientists specifically to prove there was nothing wrong with smoking tobacco, even though it was known as far back as the 16th century it was bad for your health.
But is that what happened in this case? Did any scientists actually fraudulently find nothing wrong with sugar by falsification or deliberate manipulation? Or was it just bias in what was studied?
I am not saying that no scientist was fraudulent, only that it is entirely possible to get highly biased results without fraudulent scientists, thus punishing scientists for fraud, though a very good idea, is not the only solution we should seek. We need to look at funding too.
Funding affects what gets researched. Funding for industrial science can come from industry as it makes sense that what industry wants should be funded. But funding for medical science should not come from industry as the benefit to people will not be the primary focus. This problem pervades the food and drugs industries and related science.
Similarly some science that benefits humanity (climate science for example) should be funded by governments more than industry.