Stiles Going unnoticed does not make something right. This seems to run the argument that the problem is getting caught doing the wrong thing versus doing the wrong thing.
They were doing the wrong thing. That’s not in question.
But this is not a matter of making something right or wrong. The issue is people claiming that their actions can only lead to one conclusion - agroterrorism.
Astyanax If everyone operates under an “everything’s legal until you get caught” philosophy then what’s that say about the overall morality of the people in question? Maybe they’re lying through their teeth about much more substantive issues in the research you can’t or haven’t disproven yet whose data you’re going to use to make critical decisions with.
Also trying to morally equate the turpitude of any researcher with the president of the university is pretty rich.
That’s misrepresenting what’s being argued.
You can try and claim that it’s a morality issue all you like, or go down the slippery slope that because they did something bad they must be immoral people with bad intent. But what’s the most likely reason that a student cheats or cut corners? Because it’s easier, you’re under stress, and you’re up against a deadline. Not because someone is an evil person.
egeezer I’m on the side of “highest standard” with respect to biological research. “Vibes and feelings” with respect to the physical handling of biological material used in research, or "if they don’t get caught,
the research is okay" assumptions are not formulae for success.
But, again, that’s not the argument being made. The issue is people claiming that their actions must be indicative of agroterrorism. Trying to argue that it would be impossible for the research to get through is a red herring. The fact is that people do misrepresent information on research, and bad research does get through to publication. Just because, under the highest standards of review, that the reasearch would have been flagged as invalid, doesn’t mean that a researcher wouldn’t have attempted it. Or that it wouldn’t have worked.
I’ve said nothing about whether it is “okay” or “good” that the researchers did what they did. Just that it happens.
And, to the point of my comment from that other thread, I would put accusations of agroterrorism as being something that should involve high standards of evidence, rather than just vibes and feelings.