Sorry Klik, they are all my own and I pay for all the electricity. And Yes, Minnesota is in my profile.
Also,I am done with this thread.
Cheers

You seem to think that no one other than yourself is aware of the dangers of conflicts of interest in science. In fact, you're on the trailing end of that curve. For example - http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_conflicts/foundation/#1. In particular, point 2.4 ff.

However you are not claiming that commercial interests cause any bias in terms of the research done. Your claim is that some commercial interests may get results sooner than the public at large. That barely counts as a conflict given the fact that all research is by definition, at least in the context of WCG, public domain. And as I've already tried to explain, anyone who tries to patent something based on work done at WCG would be unable to do so without contributing some sort of added value.

If you did want to raise more serious objections however, those are already being dealt with as indicated in the link above.

As I've said before, it is not the place of a facilitator like WCG to dictate how research should be done. You may not want to accept this fact but your acceptance or lack of same is irrelevant. WCG understands this fact and accepts it - as does virtually everyone else here.

So your choice is really a binary one.

First of all, any computational chemistry project is going to have exabytes of data that will be generated as a result of their research - especially if it rivals what WCG can do. So if they try to patent a molecule based on their own research, they will have to be able to document the process behind that. The same is true of any combinatorial chemistry projects. You have to try many thousands of compounds to find just a few that might have a therapeutic application. So again, if that is the claim, there will be ample documentation for it.

So any company that claims that they just happened to "stumble upon" a compound that is the same as one found by WCG will need to back up that claim with actual evidence. No one is going to just be able to say 'oh, we found that first but we're not going to give you any proof of that fact.

I don't know if you read any of the document that I linked to, but in the US, we have a law passed in 1980, the Bayh-Dole act, which specifically allows academic institutions to commercialize discoveries made with govt money. So the mere fact that WCG requires that all data be made public domain puts them light years ahead of what standard industry practice is.

As for whitelisting individual researchers, that would go far beyond what accepted practice is.

As I've said before, as a facilitator, WCG is not and should not be in the business of vetting researchers. It should and I believe does vet research institutions, but any review that is more granular needs to be left to the people in the best position to understand how changes in the rules will affect the process of scientific discovery.

If you read that link I posted, you will see some of the unforeseen consequences of the Bayh-Dole act and how those have been dealt with as well as the many open questions that remain. But again, that is not a job for WCG. Their connection to the research and its uses is just too attenuated to justify that sort of interference.