[SauronOfMordor]

It’s been like this for a very long time. Case in point, “global warming”.

When there is an “approved” narrative, then your research results damn well better support the narrative if you want to receive any more grant funding.

What we are seeing is just an increase of areas which have official narratives.

[Dr. Sivana]

When there is an “approved” narrative, then your research results damn well better support the narrative if you want to receive any more grant funding.

Way back in the '80s when I was on the University of Chicago campus I sometimes overheard talk about research and funding, even though I had no interest the the hard sciences.

On two separate occasions I heard people describing tailoring their project to get funding on the basis of something other than the researcher was interested in, AIDS and SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative). If the research could show some tangential applicability, the funding might get approved. Some good research probably came from all those deceptive applications, but it is a very inefficient way to operate.