Medical Advisory Board Chair in conflict of interest

Dr. Mark Kroll has made a great deal of money (MILLIONS?) from Taser stock options.

At the same time, Kroll has been Chairman of Taser's in-house so-called Medical Advisory Board.

This conflict of interest isn't even subtle.

Who made the decision to arrange things so that the Chairman of Taser's in-house 'Medical Advisory Board' would be sitting on a thick stack of TASR stock options?

The outcome - entirely predictable - would be an approach that the taser devices would increasingly be designed towards maximum stun-effect (to maximize sales) with just barely enough safety margin to provide some mid-term plausible deniability (to hold off the inevitable lawsuits while the stock options are cashed-in).

With respect to Ethics 101, this example is an 800 lb gorilla.



Wiki another definition: ..."plausible deniability" can also apply to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse. Examples of this are the use of electricity or pain-compliance holds as a means of torture or punishment, leaving little or no tangible signs that the abuse ever took place.