Sharkgirl wrote:
I don't get it. My understanding of acedemics is not like that at all. There are corrupt ones that get paid to endorse certain things ie new drugs but most acedemics are upholding the ethics of the scientific method and being as objective as is humanly possible from a subjective human standpoint.
I am speaking as some who got as far as his Master's degree. It is more prevalent than you think. For example, clinical trials of new drugs are so biased that one can never find the truth, because Big Pharma has buried the actual data so deep in their vaults that it is next to impossible to find. If you thought the recent fines against GlaxoSmithKine were astronomical, guess again. Those fines are nothing but chump change. A good many researcher, who are supposed to be independent, are actually getting paid quite handsomely by Big Pharma. Does that sound like academic integrity? Not to me. The watchdog agencies, notably the FDA, are just as complicit. Do you know that Pharma only has to supply 2 positive trials to have a new drug approved? Not 2 cosecutive trials, just 2 positive trials.
Even in the arts and humanities, where little, if any, new research takes place, there is rampant corruption. There is so much slicing and dicing going on to extend the life of a project that it is criminal. Do we really need to know the chronological history of Hans Sachs, one of the greatest of all cobblers of the 16th century, who also was what I use as my nom de plume? For a music History major, yes, but I highly doubt the average person would care.