Re: [compost_tea] Re:pretty close to compost tea!

From: Ted Peterson <ted.peterson_at_tcsn.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:40:03 -0700

  I have a problem when our tax dollars are given to a scientist to do a re=
search project that the scientist wrote a proposal for that states the rese=
arch they will do, and the scientist gets that funding, does the work and d=
iscovers a potential commercial product, and then turns around a patents th=
e process or the product, claiming they, or the institution they hold a pos=
ition at, now deserves the commercial rights to that product.

  That is not ethical. At the very least, the tax payer should be re-imbur=
sed.

  Do not mis-read what I wrote. But, enough. No more on this topic from m=
e.

Sorry, you don't get the last word on this. Especially when that last word =
is misleading. And please stop suggesting people misread you when they dis=
agree with you. Your implications are clear enough.

I think that the behavior you are describing is highly ethical. What I fin=
d unethical is an artificial attempt to control creativity and alternative =
forms of investigation. I don't think the tax payers should be reimbursed =
for that any more than they should be reimbursed for failed weapons systems=
 or avenues of investigation that turn up nothing and there are loads of th=
em. As long as we have a system of centralization, we will have this proble=
m. You want the problem to end, lobby your gummint to stop funding anythin=
g.

Ted Peterson
EW/SOE







Received on Wed Oct 06 2004 - 20:47:24 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:30 EST