"Reader"
wrote in message
news:l9i3m5tm1s3968eu7t754lppucr7pknpbv@4ax.com...> The opening sentence of the following paragraph doesn't seem clear to
> me. Is my reading comprehension failing me or is the test actually
> written incorrect?
Your comprehension is incorrect.
>
> " The story took a new turn with revelations that Wakefield had
> received legal aid funding to carry out his study, through lawyers
> acting for children whose parents believed their autism was caused by
> the MMR jab and wanted to sue the manufacturers. It was alleged that
> he had not revealed this to the Lancet, which then retracted part of
> the paper."
>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakefield-downfall
>
> I can't see how the first part of the sentence (to do with legal aid
> funding) could have anything to do with the "lawyers acting for
> children" in the second part of the sentence.
>
> FIRST. As I understand it funding for legal aid does not come via
> lawyers. Perhaps the author means funding was _arranged_ by certain
> lawyers.
Legal aid only comes via lawyers. The lawyers get the funding, to pay their
fees and disbursements. Here, they commissioned medical reports from
Wakefield and his fees included (in effect) the cost of running his studies,
which the lawyers should have refused to pay but presumably they paid,
recovering the money from the Legal Aid fund.
>
> SECOND. If legal aid funding was in fact arranged by lawyers who were
> themselves also acting for the affected children then what is so
> remarkable or incorrect about that?
Because any research arranged in those circumstances isn't objective and
impartial, but is designed to help establish a claim.
