|
|
|
|
|
by foolmeonce
2007 days ago
|
|
This is all quite true, the loophole seems to be that you can take these rules seriously but have much less obligation to keep what you publish within the limits your choices within the rules create. The original publisher could only claim to know it had an unconfirmable suppressive affect on drinking for the short period they were allowed to contact the subjects. The limits were clearly used to imply more and alternative researchers that responsibly asked for sufficient permissions at the start would have been at a double disadvantage. (Harder to recruit subjects and results that were less likely to be remarkable.) |
|