Re:Jeffrey Epstein’s Harvard connections show how money can ...
by s1artibartfast on Tuesday August 25, 2020 @08:53PM
(#24277944)
There is what-about-ism and there is contextualization.
I think the philanthropic distortion of science is such a small negative effect it is not worth considering at all.
And "one" would be kind of engaging in "what-about-ism".
You certainly have some corporations indeed attempting to twist results in areas like climate science or tobacco smoke. The main limit here is that companies spend based on semi-objective cost benefits so most companies want to look better hire public relations agencies rather than paying for science but see notable except above.
Sure, I don't which different kinds of science distortion worst but it's certainly remarkable the different arguments which phenomena like Epstein's efforts aren't really a problem.