[tines]

Not that I'm in favor of the proposed measure, but saying because we can't identify wilful frauds 100% of the time then we can't protect the non-fraudsters, is just a bit silly, no? You have this kind of problem detecting any kind of fraud.

One test is, is there written communication between people about committing the fraud? If so, there you go.

[auggierose]

Of course, such communication cannot ever be faked by interested third parties.

[tines]

That isn't a new problem though. Should we not enforce laws against fraud because people might be framed? You determine that through investigation.

[auggierose]

I'd argue scientists have better things to do than spending their time shielding themselves from liability lawsuits.

[tines]

Again, not a new problem.

[auggierose]

That is wrong, it would be a new problem, because currently it does not exist.

[tines]

I don't believe you're engaging in good faith here, so I'm not going to reply any more, but if you're interested in having a productive conversation, try to think about what I might be meaning a little more and then reply instead of taking the least sensical interpretation and responding to that. Or, if you like, you might reply to multiple interpretations of what I said if you're not sure which one I mean, and that way we can advance the dialogue.

Have a good one.