Letter: Medical moneyspinners

Sunday 04 December 1994 00:02 GMT

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

WHEN I indicated that the ``peer review'' process was a means of ensuring valuable scientific research with minimal political interference (Letters, 23 October), I was unaware of a recent change instituted by the Medical Research Council. Previously referees were asked to assess only a project's importance ``to the advancement of biomedical science/clinical practice''. It now requests an indication of the importance to ``wealth creation or the quality of life''.

The implication that a project might offset its inadequacy in contributing to an improved quality of life by making money would be laughable were it not stated

seriously.

Gavin Reynolds

University of Sheffield

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Letter: Medical moneyspinners

Join our commenting forum

Thank you for registering