Today's entry is a discussion topic and I hope you'll participate as it helps me know when my theories are on target or misguided.
The most disturbing part of editing my documentary today was hearing Fischer say to a journalist "If not us, then who? There's no one behind us, I'd be helping them if they were there." Obviously this statement dismisses the multitude of researchers who have been working hard for decades before OCEARCH came into existence while also dismissing published data and efforts to change legislation. It also implies there was no one for him to donate his wealth to support rather than starting his own company. Which leads me to my discussion topic. I know researchers that decided to team up with Fischer and I know researchers who rejected him on the grounds that they didn't like his reputation or methods. The theme that keeps ringing in my head is that this all seems to boil down to money, or rather a lack thereof. Researchers need funding and equipment to continue their work...so perhaps the root of the problem is a general lack of funding. If there was no lack of funding perhaps there would be no foothold for people like Fischer to jump into the game.
If you don’t mind taking the time to discuss, please focus on these two questions:
- If given the opportunity to work with OCEARCH and receive funding from them, would you? What if you had no lack of funds so money wasn’t an issue...would that affect your decision to work with or not work with them?
- If you are one of the researchers who previously worked with Fischer then distanced yourself from his organization afterward, what keeps you quiet? Fear of retaliation from someone with money or a contractual agreement not to say disparaging things?
- Have you been approached by OCEARCH or a similar opportunity? What was your decision and why?