Most scientific papers conclude exactly what the funding entity wants them to conclude.
Because, if in the preliminary findings the study is “going the wrong way”, funding is withdrawn.
So, there just MIGHT be some incentive on the part of the “scientists” to conclude EXACTLY what the funding entity wants.
[ Because, if in the preliminary findings the study is “going the wrong way”, funding is withdrawn.
So, there just MIGHT be some incentive on the part of the “scientists” to conclude EXACTLY what the funding entity wants. ]
That and once they get on the gravy train of their conclusion they become a “self feeding machine”....
I think a better way to fund science would be some sort of system where funding was abstracted from the study being performed somehow....
You hit it on the nail. Anytime someone tells me about something some “experts” found in a study, I ask them if they know who paid for the study.
It’s been this way for years. I’d love to see it change. I quit doing research years ago for many reasons, but that was one of them.
Ayn Rand seems more and more brilliant every day. Decades ago she wrote that “free scientific inquiry” is a redundancy and “governmental scientific inquiry” is a contradiction in terms. Why should anyone be surprised that “scientific” studies tend to produce the finding which was sought after when the funding was approved. That is to be expected and it should also be expected that in many or even most cases the “scientists” reaching the expected conclusions will do everything possible to convince everyone involved INCLUDING THEMSELVES that they have done honest work rather than merely reaching a preordained conclusion.