Thread: This Research Brought to You By...

While glancing through one of our Conservative papers the other month, I chanced upon this.

Right climate for big bucks | Herald Sun

Now, I am not a big fan of the author, but I feel in this column he makes an interesting, albeit quite naive and surface-level, point.

For those not interested in reading it, the author makes the point that mentioning the words "climate change" in research grant applications seems to have a rare efficacy in terms of the success of said applications, regardless of the nature of the proposed research.

In any event, the article is the catalyst, rather than the substance, of the purpose of this thread.

It is my belief that the changing nature of funding research, at least in this country, in combination with how academic and research positions are employed, means that we are leaving ourselves wide open for the belittlement articles such as this (perhaps not underservingly) heap upon us. We chase the elusive funding dollar because we need to keep our jobs - even tenure is not "tenure" any more.

With promotion and job security directly linked to how much money you bring in to your Institution, how does the research industry maintain, or more pessimistically, claw back, its reputation as unbiased and objective? Does it matter? Is everyone so used to "following the money" nowadays that any results published are taken with a grain of salt? Was this always the case, and I am simply living in a "hallowed halls of academe" fantasy world?

What do you guys think?

James.

It really is unfair to suggest that science is driven by some sort of agenda....

-Richard Dawkins

You know if he said, it must be true!

Thank you James. That article is pretty funny ... no wait ... it is very sad actually. Try to get a grant for research how use of straight razors vs. disposable blades may impact the climate change.

If that loop hole clearly exists, why not exploit it?

I don't think science ever pretended that the scientific community could be unbiased. I think this is one of the reasons for the requirement of double blind testing of theories.

Unfortunately as long as money makes the world go round, the scientific community will find ways to study what makes the world go round.

"massively facilitate...climate change."

I'd give a lot to know what that "..." replaced.

In my opinion, I'd have to read the rest of the proposal to know why they got the grants. As them scientimicians say, "Correlation does not equal causality."

There are different organizations who sponsor and fund research for odd ball things however those are rare and in general there is tremendous competition for research funding so in order to get the bucks when you do your proposal you have to have certain buzzwords and need to focus on the "in" things or you won't be successful.