[exergy]

AEI operates with so much of an agenda that it would be impossible for me to pick up that book and read it without the filter of AEI published it. I'd constantly be on guard for where the authors tries to inject "Regulation? Booooo, hisss" sentiments.

[cgmg]

You didn't answer the question.

[Broken_Hippo]

Yes, he did. It was specific. I have a similar opinion.

Because the publisher also engages in climate change denial and other such thing, it is hard to trust anything in This book - even though it is a different subject. I couldn't read it and trust any factual bits presented to me - the worst case scenario is that I get these "facts" mixed up with things that are from more credible places without having the time or inclination to fact-check everything in the book.

[Noseshine]

> Yes, he did. It was specific.

It was specific about the authors, but the question was about specifics of the book. Still not one bit of information about the book in sight in this sub-thread.

I don't care either way, as a bored HN reader going through this and that thread I just noticed the discrepancy, and while I have nothing to say about the subject being discussed I am able to see that the discussion itself does not have much substance but lots of partisan voting in lieu of substance. Come on guys, you do what you routinely accuse the other side of doing.

[pas]

The book is tained by the publisher. It's a perfectly valid reason in a very complex and delicate debate, such as climate change and pharma innovation regulation.

Even if the book is fine, it might not be the total picture, thus it could mislead you by omission. And it can be totally in good faith, it's just bias.

So, even if the book is a good overview, it's just a voice in a discussion, and without hearing what others think of the book, it's pretty good to go by what one knows of the publisher.

[Noseshine]

> Even if the book is fine

There is the crux of your... argument. How about you read the book and then come back? You sure have a lot to say about something you never looked at.

You can't improve how "the other side" is arguing (or not arguing), but you sure have 100% control over your own behavior and discussion habits. Attacking the people instead of the work is as bad as it gets, especially if you never even set eye on the latter. I won't read it either, but I don't have an opinion about it that I'm trying to share.

[WalterBright]

Looks like I'm the only person who ever read the book :-(

https://www.amazon.com/Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation-...

BTW, it was published in 1987, long before climate change became a thing.

[dkural]

reading a book is a significant investment of time. when published by untrustworthy institutions, i am not willing to make that investment.

[cancelNYTimes]

Yes, this is why I cancelled my New York Times subscription, and have been recommending everyone else do as well. They are now in the business of publishing climate denial propaganda for profit. Don't support it.

[pas]

Can you expand on this? Links? Sources? What did they publish that was climate change denialism?

[lr4444lr]

They published an op-ed from Bret Stephens[0] that was largely focused on criticizing the elite's hubristic over-reliance on probabilistic data models as a justification for not dignifying skepticism of less well-informed people. It was construed as a promotion of climate change denialist FUD. That charge was fair to make, but a certain subset of people prone to dramatic gestures figured unsubscribing was the appropriate response, as if the NYTimes had never pushed politically biased interests before.

[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-comple...

[pas]

Thanks!