Um, no they don't. You haven't actually read many scientific studies, have you?
No, I haven't. Nor do I intend to. My post was a lampoon of all of the "scientific research" grifters who go to Washington with their hats in had begging for money to study such important things as "why do dung beetles roll up excrement balls". Now, I don't know if such a study has ever been done, but that is an example of the kind of outrageous projects that do get funding through pork barrel politics. My post may have been too lame or too clever by half for you to "get", or it may not have been funny to anyone other than me. But, if you are honest with yourself, there are elements of truth in my post. Its exaggerated claim of "every study" may paint with too broad a brush, but the gist of my post holds true in many cases.
I said, "Our study, while exhaustive in its complexity [Translation: We wrote a whole bunch of stuff that we know you will never be able to make heads nor tails of because all we have to say is that it is scientific jargon that can't be understood by silly lay persons],". As lay people, most of us do not have the expertise nor experience to understand a report generated with jargon exclusive to a specific field of study without our returning to school and getting a doctorate in said field. That lack of ability to comprehend leaves open a broad possibility for fraud. A search on the terms "Fraud scientific research yields this: Results 1 - 50 of about 4,880,000 for Fraud scientific research. (0.34 seconds). The number of hits, almost 5 million, indicates there is at least the possibility of fraud in scientific research.
I also said,"is inconclusive at this time and needs continuing research [Translation: We couldn't gin up enough evidence to prove our supposition one way or another and we want to keep doing the same thing until we can achieve our agenda]". We both know that some projects get renewed funding every year, year after year and little or no progress is made. At some point, when concrete results are not forthcoming utilizing the same processes over and over, the project needs to be halted and looked at from another perspective, especially if the funding for the project comes out of the public coffers.
I also said, "It is our hope that we can get increased funding [Translation: We blew the money on parties and lived high off the hog on the government's dime, and we fervently hope we can schmooze our way into another big bucks grant] to continue this much needed research in our continuing efforts to explore the unknown [Translation: This research grant is needed by us so we can continue living in the lifestyle we have become accustomed to under our previous research grant]". My logic says that if researchers are willing to commit fraud in their research, then they would not be above using research funds fraudulently for other things, including an exorbitant lifestyle, as well, and a Google search turns up 57,200 hits on the terms ""scientific research" fraudulent use of funds".
Finally, I stated, "This research could provide exciting new benefits for all of humanity [Translation: If we do find anything, we will damn sure patent it and secure the benefits for our own wealth even though the research is being done on public funds]". As far as the patent issue is concerned, Google gave this result: Results 1 - 50 of about 5,180,000 for public funding scientific research patents. (0.62 seconds). A good site for a discussion of that can be found here. So the public funding/private profit issue is not a paper tiger. It is my belief that if public funds are used in the research of something profitable, then at least 50% of all profits generated should be returned to the public.
After having viewed your homepage, I assume (probably wrongly) that you are either a scientist or are associated with scientists and therefore took my post personally. If so, I am sorry, but please do not dismiss the possibility of fraudulent use of public funding in science. It does happen, and we all pay for it.