ScottJohnson":ew07z3cz said:
I'll bite. Let's rewind to day one and say they realized this. What would they do differently?
Their point is that the "scientific deliberative process" is inherently mine-able for smears or quotes that portray uncertainty, and that these may play in the court of law or public opinion with those who don't understand how science operates. Having that hanging over researchers' heads, they say, is not conducive to scientific progress or volunteering for public service.
I thought it was obvious. They should add a disclaimer in small print to the end of all email and write/print on paper with the same disclaimer at the bottom of each page.
"DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments to it may be legally privileged and include confidential information intended only for the recipient(s) identified above. If you are not one of those intended recipients, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender of that fact by return e-mail and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments to it immediately. Please do not retain, copy or use this e-mail or its attachments for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of its contents to any other person."
