8 ms·
No, you would just need a document by enough people in the organization to specify who caused the issue. For example, if a scientist knows that a drug caused a
by devmonk 16y ago
No, you would just need a document by enough people in the organization to specify who caused the issue.
For example, if a scientist knows that a drug caused a side effect that included brain damage, but chose to hide that fact through manipulation of the data to get the drug approved, and two out of four on his small team knew (were accomplices) but two were not in the know, then the two not in the know could claim innocence, and the rest of company as a whole could claim as a whole (a single document that all agree to) that the aforementioned team was responsible.
Assuming that federal investigation (FBI for example) was assisting, they could help prove the innocence of others in the company as well as the innocence of the two on the team that were unaware of cover-up. The three involved would be imprisoned.
- anthonyb 16y agoSounds awfully like guilty-until-proven-innocent to me...
- JoachimSchipper 16y agoAnd it makes it even more likely that the little guy gets punished instead of the executive who told him to do it (and has all of the corporate lawyers working for him). No, "orders are orders" is not a sufficient defense. "It was my underling" isn't either.