My interest in
the commercial side of science probably began during my MSc course in Biotechnology at University College London (UCL), where I conducted a 4 - month research project at Glaxo R&D on high throughput screening of enzyme inhibitors for cancer prevention.
Not exact matches
He became concerned with such issues as: the evidence
of a causal relationship between common feeding practices and serious health problems; the perceived disconnect between the nutritional requirements
of felis silvestris catus and all other species
of cats; an industry with a vested interest in grain as the basis for its products; a veterinary education system with little nutritional teaching, subsidized by
commercial pet food industries; a questionable government concept approval and oversight process; the economic inertia
of maintaining the status quo; and the rejection
of science - based belief systems on the extremes
of both
sides of the issue.
Instead
of showing Modernism's stifling blocks or Postmodernism's ironic,
commercial side, it leaves Rem Koolhaus and Andreas Gorski as fantasies
of play, almost like
science fiction.
The problem is that both
sides tend to see a conspiracy both in the promotion
of the results
of science like this and in opposition to the research results which it is claimed is funded by
commercial interests like the Donor fund and promulgated by the same tactics and often the same people that undermined the
science on tobbaco, asbestos, DDT, CFCs, lead.....
Science will always have to defend itself against enemies
of freedom on two
sides, against ideological enemies on one
side and against
commercial enemies on the other.