Chhabria on Monday said plaintiffs could introduce some evidence of Monsanto’s alleged attempts to ghostwrite studies and influence the findings of scientists and regulators during the first phase of upcoming trials. He said documents which showed the company taking a position on the science or a study introduced during the first phase were “super relevant.”
I think you mean they don't discuss in sufficient detail for your liking.
> Chhabria on Monday said plaintiffs could introduce some evidence of Monsanto’s alleged attempts to ghostwrite studies and influence the findings of scientists and regulators during the first phase of upcoming trials. He said documents which showed the company taking a position on the science or a study introduced during the first phase were “super relevant.”
I think you mean they don't discuss in sufficient detail for your liking.
I think you mean they don't discuss in sufficient detail for your liking
I'll give you that. Still the article is more appropriate for a news/business since it doesn't actually talk about science just a lawsuit filed against a controversial company.
>I think you mean they don't discuss in sufficient detail for your liking
I'll give you that. Still the article is more appropriate for a news/business since it doesn't actually talk about science just a lawsuit filed against a controversial company.
They don't actually talk about any science in the article, nor do they discuss what the "controversial evidence" entails.