Anonymous Corporate Funding of “Scientific” Research
Corporate conglomerates and wealthy individuals are already making billions of dollars' worth of anonymous political contributions. All they have to do is launder their money through those ubiquitous fake “charity” organizations that don't have to disclose their donors.
And now, chemical companies are taking this to the next level. They want to be able to pay for scientific research — research which would “prove” certain chemicals aren't really that bad, there's no danger at all, move along nothing to see here — without the public knowing who paid for these new “findings.”
Sixteen Republican (of course!) Senators are trying to repeal the existing research disclosure rules so that when a new scientific finding is publicized, we won't have any idea who paid for this “research.” If a new study says climate change is a hoax, was this study based on objective scientific methods, or was it financed by the Koch Brothers? Maybe Pat Robertson could secretly finance a study proving that atheists are more likely to be homosexual flag-burners on welfare.
For now, the sixteen Republican prostitutes are dealing with the specific issue of silica dust, which has serious health hazards for the millions of workers who are exposed to it. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is planning to update the safety guidelines for working with silica dust. OSHA Chief David Michaels said:
“What I’m doing here is essentially saying the information that we will base our standard on has to be of the highest integrity, and we have to do it in a transparent manner, and conflict-of interest disclosure is an important component of both of those. It would be surprising right now if a scientific journal didn’t ask for that information.”
Lamar Alexander (R—Been Bent Over So Long It Looks Like Up to Me) and his fifteen fellow prostitutes have sent a letter to OSHA objecting to these disclosure requirements:
“The chilling effect the financial disclosure could have seems counter to the idea of robust inclusion of a diverse set of ideas and views to inform the rule-making.”
Huh??? The Sixteen Skanks were highly paid by chemical companies for writing that incoherent sentence (which should be a slam dunk to win this year's Bulwer-Lytton Bad Writing Award).