Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Actually, I think an even stronger statement can be made. I think it is unethical of the journals to require revealing sources of funding before publication. Some scientific inquiry (such as this, for example) may pose undue burden on its sponsors. Requiring that sponsorship be revealed inhibits free scientific inquiry. Consider another hypothetical example: an illicit narcotics distributor may want to sponsor research into the long-term medical effects of some legal drug use vs illegal drug use. If a researcher is required to reveal taking money from such a source of funding, he cannot do so without damaging his reputation. But this prevents honest scientific look at a medically pertinent question because it prevents any kind of funding from being given to qualified researchers who may want to investigate such a question.
In fact, the researchers should be required to reveal their data much more so than they should be required to reveal their source of funding. But this is a requirement that most journals do not have.
Research should be considered on its merit. The assumption should be made that there are vested interests on both sides of any controversial scientific issue and the source of funding should not be considered as a data point in evaluating the legitimacy of research
At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure,
square off with this:
The Koch Brothers are cited as a source of Dr. Soon's funding.
Oh, and btw, citing the source of research funding is generally considered a form of thanking the source for the funding rather than a necessary disclosure.
An employer can't make you sign a contract that says "...and I will be your slave forever and will never work for another company."
"I'll be your slave forever", no, they can't. "I will never seek any form of employment anywhere else", yes, one most certainly can enter into such a contract. Even if no future considerations are given. It may not be prudent, but one can enter into such a contract.
As long one enters into it with full knowledge (not likely), one can agree to such terms. People exchange immediate considerations for future opportunities all the time (selling proceeds from future rights for immediate cash payout would be one such example). And no one "forced" anyone to sign a contract. Employment can be employment at will without any contract restricting the terms beyond those established by laws.
Having said all of this, I still don't understand how they can sue Apple for violating terms of a contract to which Apple is not a party.