well...even though some people say that TBMS & me are doing something wrong here, by listing affiliations & possible liabilities in a business/scientific practices...

1. we do care about WCG, or we wouldn't be here!
2. we do this, so that some bad business/scientific practices - if there are any - are stopped...it wouldn't be nice to have WCG investigated by FTC & their collaboration with some bad business/scientific practices in some corporations (after VWgate, just came a SAMSUNGgate, etc.)...'cause even though it didn't receive any compensation from d researchers/scientists, WCG did enable that bad business/scientific practices by lack of transparency & protection in statements...
3. we've been suggesting for WCG to be more transparent & protects a company (WCG & IBM) & us as a crunchers from bad business/scientific practices...
that suggestion is just one in a line of suggestions that some of us have brought to WCG - check forum Suggestions/Feedback!
4. we all spend money on electricity & these new processors are not what they used to be...they don't do a 100% of speed anymore & be dormant...no, they power down to 30% of speed & spend less & less power for only writing in Word or browsing internet...so keeping it up to 100% is a big power drain, 'cause modern processors often spend as much as an old wolfram light bulbs (60-150Wh)!!!
those kWh we pay on average 0,2€/h...so we're interested in our donations & where the money/CPU power/results go to!

thank u 4 understanding!

I'd like to clarify a few things and (hopefully) set a few things to rest. And I apologize for not chiming in sooner - we've been heads down working towards last week's launch of the second phase of FightAIDS@Home.

First, we evaluate every research project proposal on many criteria including to validate the research approach being proposed; to confirm that the research organization is indeed public or non profit; etc. This evaluation process includes external reviews by other scientists in the field. Once a proposal is approved, we then put in place a contractual agreement with the research organization which stipulates, amongst other things, that the data being generated on World Community Grid must be made publicly available, free of charge, to spread the benefits to the wider scientific community. Researchers typically meet that requirement once they publish their findings after the end of the project on World Community Grid. In the case of CEP, the Harvard team decided to start publishing the data during the lifespan of the project on World Community Grid following the analysis of the first 2 million compounds screened on World Community Grid. They are now analyzing the next large set of screened compounds and plan on releasing more data into their online database once their findings are published.

It's important to clarify, that our requirement for researchers to release the data is specific to the raw data sent back by World Community Grid volunteers, and not to any future work performed on or insight derived from that data.

Second, we don't deny nor shy away from the fact that research teams have (often well established) relationships with commercial and for-profit entities. That's the nature and reality of research. In a climate of declining government funding for scientific research, these partnerships are often a necessity. We meet with each of the research teams on a regular basis where they often discuss the work they're doing with other groups and organizations. We often encourage them to include such details when they provide project updates, not just for transparency's sake but so that our volunteers can understand the full context and complexity of the research process. So there is no hidden agenda nor conspiracy by us nor our research partners to hide any such information from our volunteers.

Finally, I'd like to remind everyone that this is a space for discussing and sharing ideas. You don't have to like what other people are saying, and it's OK to disagree, but there's no need to insult each other. Please keep it civil!

While I'm sure everyone appreciates the response from WCG, if I might play devil's advocate for a moment, I don't know that it addresses the concerns raised by klik and tbms.

If I've understood their argument to date, they're not suggesting that research groups using WCG NOT have commercial associations. I believe their contention was that these relationships be disclosed to the members of WCG.

While I don't agree with that position, it seems to me that if WCG is going to take the time to respond, they should respond to the specific issue being raised rather than issues that I believe have already been settled.

The key language in jhindo's response is as follows, particularly the bolded section:
In other words, WCG encourages researchers to disclose their associations but the obvious implication of course is that they do not require it. It's purely voluntary which I assume is not what you were looking for.

maybe u should have think also about those...sooner or later, some1 bad will arrive...& like in all societies, 10% of people r bad...so in your past in WCG -> 2-3 project must be rotten apples...