> IOW if the report was never intended for publication, then why commission it > at all?
You are missing the obvious, guys - ... they fully intended to publish it from the start - since they were pretty sure they finally got the thing to being robust -- BUT nevertheless, they would publish only if it was indeed positive. Rowan was never free to make that decision on their own. Since BLP could not know this for sure in advance, as grad students and professors can occasionally screw up anything -- then to be cautious, BLP insisted that it was to be marked 'proprietary and confidential' and all of the other legalese; so that in the event that it had not turned out to be positive - no one would ever hear about it. This is exactly what the big Drug Companies do when they are sponsoring tests at Hospitals and Universities - consequently - you only hear about the results when they are positive from the perspective of the sponsor. That situation is more sinister, of course, since real harm can follow from silence - and it is why the that industry is under pressure to become slightly more regulated than in the past.
