there are always exceptions. the problem with many scientists is that, because they are smart, they think they know better than everyone else, so, why shouldn't their ideas/ideology work for everyone else. So, when they do "research" that doesn't turn out the way they please, they KNOW what they believe is true, they just don't have the data to prove it...so, fudge the numbers a little and voila....proof. I suspect, however, that in this case, Monsanto just paid some scientists some big money to "sway" their opinion. I too, am a scientist....surrounded daily by commie-pinko libtards.
Fraudulent behaviour happens in many professions...it is unsurprising that it happens by some practitioners of science...(regardless of political ideological inclinations, both conservative and progressive). You are right to question who funds the science...on the basis that who pays the piper calls the tune and may bias the outcomes and reported results of scientific research. I can't imagine that the folk doing the scientific research for "Big Tobacco" or "defence Industries" "Big Pharma" etc are necessarily all "commie, pinko, libtards, but they probably do know on which side of their bread is buttered...if they want to keep the research shekels coming in. One of the positive things about the scientific method is that scientific claims are open to skeptical scrutiny by other scientists to test whether the claims and research methods used to assert them are valid or not. Straight scientists have the option of testing the scientific conclusions of "bent" scientists and report their own conclusions. Such was the case when grand claims were made some years ago by a research team claiming a brekthrough in "cold fusion". I would say that most scientists are honest, ethical workers in their field, and that some scientists are dishonest and work in an unethical manner....it doesn't necessarily follow that dishonesty and unethical scientific conduct follows from "left wing / liberal" political ideaological inclinations, or that honest and ethical conduct follows from "right wing / conservative" political inclinations...right or left...filthy lucre is a strong corrupting influence.
I didn't call ALL scientists commie, pinko libtards. Just the ones I work with who think nothing about deleting a few cases that disprove their research findings because what they're doing is for the greater good...the end justifies the means. I'm sure there are just as many big industry scientists who do the same thing who are unscrupulous, capitalist pigs. ...and, you don't even have to be a scientist as oldawg points out. Harken back to Fast & Furious: without the whistle-blower...one person in the thick of it all saying "NO," we may never have known about the govt's attempt to nullify the 2nd Amendment. It all revolves around your sense of right/wrong and whether or not you have the balls to say something to the contrary.
I tend to be leary of any scientists who get their funding via the Goobermint or the Big Businesses like Big Agra - it is at best a conflict of interest, or they don't want to 'bite the hand that feeds them' I am absolutely 'pro-science' when it's done with true facts and proven results.
Perfect example...you probably saw the report a few days ago that stated organic foods weren't any more nutritious than regular crops.' That study was basically paid for by big agra.
