I know - I mentioned this specifically earlier in the comments.

I have been funded by exactly that sort of money, in fact, in past research, although I am currently funded via a large general programme grant.

You're inferring that I think "oil money" is dirty. All I'm saying is that not disclosing your funding source *regardless of what your science says* is suspect.

Given the nature of the material in it, that is a very convenient dodge, and is certainly an unusual way to go about it.

There's obviously nothing wrong with that (assuming that your other funding sources can pay your bills), but it's not typical. Whether it is suspicious or not, it looks suspicious.

There are lots of papers that say that, just as there are many that say the opposite. It's not at all settled.

They all should disclose who is funding them though, as is typical.

Look at his paper and also at the sup for his paper. Is it in there?

Proof.

Next question?

In which case their funding source is the program grant that keeps them employed and pays his rent.

Reading comprehension. Practice it.

That is my point.

My point; that was it.

Point. Mine. Made.

Err, you're making my point for me? Thanks?

I assume you didn't understand my comment. You also forgot to log in.

You seem to have missed my point. Growing penicillin is not difficult, and synthesising amoxicillin is also not that difficult. The research and money necessary to synthesise and test modern antibiotics is orders of magnitude bigger than the drugs of old for all manner of reasons.

Brilacidin *might* be profitable - it's not approved yet and it could still fail to make it to market. The vast majority of drugs never make it to market yet they costs millions in development anyway. It's an extremely expensive and difficult business with a high failure rate.

Where did I say that I thought his funding was from Koch?

I said that he did not disclose his funding source and that makes it suspect.

Given the level of your argument though, it seems you're not interested in discussing it. You also forgot to log in. If you forgot your password then you can reset it by email.

So he works for free?

Must be nice.

No, where did I say that I did?

Scientists are routinely investigated. Not just climate scientists but all scientists of all disciplines - it's part of the process. Accounting for the money used to fund your research is a major part of modern science and it is carefully tracked and audited, as are the sources used by groups and individuals.

It is your responsibility to disclose them in your published work, but that doesn't mean that people aren't also going to check if you don't - that's exactly why this story exists and why it is important. He didn't do so and an investigation caught it. This sort of financial scrutiny of scientists is not uncommon, and it happens to *all* scientists, even ones who don't work on climate science.

Well obviously, that's what the story is about after all, but in general these things don't happen - there's plenty of scrutiny of scientists from all sides as it is, especially in hot-button political topics like atmospheric science.

Who said anything about shutting it down?

All they want is for him to disclose who is funding him, as is standard practice in science.

Right, but the rule for publishing is that you disclose who paid for your research. If you don't do that then people aren't going to take the research seriously. Your funding source is most certainly not irrelevant at all. It doesn't mean that you automatically dismiss any work that us funded by an organisation you don't like, or who you assume has an agenda - you look at the research itself - but if you don't disclose then you're nowhere.

Your source is suspect there, I'm afraid.

If his papers are fine then why did he not disclose his funding source? That's rule one about publishing your work. To not do so is very sketchy.