Re: [Leica] No! No!, Erwin!

[SthRosner@aol.com]

Bryan Caldwell's following post is a precise description of the conflicts of 
interest and appearance of impropriety issues. I say this as a lawyer and, if 
you will, ethicist who has been involved in legal ethics matters for over 
three decades, has an international reputation in that field and is a 
founding member of the Josephson Institute of Ethics (not legal ethics but 
ethics and values in a broad personal and societal context) in Marina del 
Rey, California and presently Chairman of its Board of Governors.

Put aside some of the unwarranted nastiness that this thread has generated 
and in my judgment Bryan has identified the issue that is at the heart of the 
thread. 

In a message dated 4/13/02 11:57:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
bcaldwell51@earthlink.net writes:

> The issue is not whether any relationship with Leica skews Erwin's (or
>  anyone else's) reports. The issue is whether or not such a relationship
>  should be disclosed when presenting what are portrayed as unbiased reports.
>  
>  I believe that any connection (no matter how insignificant it may seem) 
with
>  the manufacturer of a product that is being reviewed should be disclosed. 
If
>  the product is provided (or loaned) by the manufacturer (rather than being
>  purchased by the reviewer, that should be disclosed. If the individual item
>  is select for review by the manufacturer rather than picked at random from 
a
>  dealer's stock, that should be disclosed. If a manufacturer has exercised
>  any control whatsoever over what a reviewer says about a product, that
>  should be disclosed. If a reviewer has received any treatment from a
>  manufacturer that would differentiate them from any average consumer, that
>  should be disclosed.
>  
>  Failure to do this does not mean that the results of the review or test are
>  not accurate or impartial. They are just facts that a reader/consumer has a
>  right to know when deciding how much weight to give to the opinions and
>  conclusions of the reviewer.
>  
>  It's not really any different than Consumer Reports magazine pointing out 
in
>  every issue that they buy all products for review as if they were any other
>  consumer (without identifying themselves - and return any product that is
>  provided to them by a manufacturer) or NBC news disclosing every time they
>  report on a story involving Microsoft that they have a joint business
>  venture with Microsoft (MSNBC). Disclosure is just the ethical and proper
>  thing to do.
>  
>  I have not followed every thread involving Erwin. But, in the past, I have
>  noticed that disclosures of any kind were absent from his web site. I have
>  also read posts by Erwin that clearly imply that he has a high level of
>  communication with Leica. Again, I don't point this out to question his
>  results.  I agree with Austin (with whom I often disagree on other topics)
>  that asking for a clarification of this is not a personal attack. My
>  observation of what happened on the LUG is that many of Erwin's readers 
took
>  such questioning as a personal attack.
>  
>  Conflict of interest is a very touchy subject because many people fail to
>  realize (or forget) that it has to do with "appearance" as well as actual
>  conflict. One who presents tests or reviews as scientific and objective
>  should have no problem disclosing any and all information that could even
>  result in an appearance of impropriety.
>  
>  Bryan 
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html