The hypocrisy has gone beyond any imagination: the British government’s chief scientific advisor has set out a universal 7-point ethical code for scientists – and he violates four points while he is moving his lips!
The British government’s chief scientific advisor has set out a universal 7-point ethical code for scientists. He broke four while he was presenting it. The code is supposed to separate "researchers from charlatans, medicine from quackery and science from supposition". Not a good start.
Professor Sir David King has outlined seven principles aimed at building trust between scientists and society. Here they are:
1 – Act with skill and care, keep skills up to date
2 – Prevent corrupt practice and declare conflicts of interest
3 – Respect and acknowledge the work of other scientists
4 – Ensure that research is justified and lawful
5 – Minimise impacts on people, animals and the environment
6 – Discuss issues science raises for society
7 – Do not mislead; present evidence honestly
The idea was swiftly backed by Lib Dem science spokesman Dr Evan Harris. "The seven points in this code are part of what separates researchers from charlatans, medicine from quackery and science from supposition," he said.’
Who would disagree with those points? We believe no one – and certainly not us.
But now read the punch line – and don’t laugh too hard: ‘Professor King conceded that the code could create conflicts between employers and individuals, but suggested it could also help resolve them.
"Place yourself in the position of a scientist who works for a tobacco company, and the company asks you to counter evidence about the health impacts of tobacco. "That scientist would be able to look at the code and say ‘I can’t do that’." ‘
Talking about charlatans, King wants to project the impression that the “health impacts of tobacco” are a scientifically established fact. Can you scientifically prove the unique causality of one death from tobacco, Mr. King? Certainly not. That is already in conflict with point 7. Don’t you work for a government that has endorsed the passive (and active) agenda on smoking? Certainly yes. As there is no question whatsoever that the “studies” on passive smoking are based on a methodological fraud, that is in conflict with point 2, both on the count of corrupt practice and on that of your conflict of interest. Furthermore, the behaviour of the antitobacco “credo” by crooked scientists who have slandered and silenced their colleagues who clearly demonstrated that the antitobacco claims cannot be scientifically demonstrated (click here for one example) are in violation of point 3.
With his punch line Prof. King has stated his antismoking corrupt ideology — as all good state lackeys should do. An ideology of prevarication and deep dishonesty, that justifies misleading the public with trash science and partial information (violation of point 4) and that thus deserves no respect.
But let’s not be too hard on King and what he (truly) represents. He may have some sort of integrity, after all. He just has his moral poles reversed. A sign of the times. Let’s just make sure that we keep ours straight.
Please also read further comments on this issue on Freedom To Choose.