# Do countries waste money on useless research?



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

I recently read a study conducted by a UK researcher that studied why Dutch kids were much happier and more pleased with school than UK kids were, and was just thinking to myself... why? Such studies cost money and give us facts that don't matter. Is it actually important to know why one country is happier than another? And this isn't even the first 'study' I've come across that has left me pondering as to why it was ever conducted in the first place. I can understand that such facts can be interesting, but as to whether or not it's 'useful' for any real reason other than curiosity is debatable, or not?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Lars said:


> Is it actually important to know why one country is happier than another?


Sure it is... or at least it can be. Unless we can safely assume that our country does everything better than every other country, we would do wise to do research. Sometimes policy follows research. Who's to say what policy will stem from what research? It's a bit of a mug's game.

Yes, some studies are epic time-wasters costing the taxpayer stupid amounts of dough. Alas, people and their governments do stupid things all the time and I can't see getting riled up about moronic studies when pols can waste our money a thousand different ways. And really, I can think of worse things to fund than researh into why one country may be happier on some level than another.

It's a small world getting smaller and we would do well to better understand how to get along with one another, whether we talk of fellow Canadians or fellow citizens of the world.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Curiosity has driven many of the greatest discoveries.
Not all research is specifically purposed.

Dark matter and the background radiation from the big bang were notable discoveries that came unexpectedly from run of the mill research projects.

The study in question is actually fairly tightly purposed and could indeed impact public policy worldwide.

Some research may show little practical value at the time then lead others to breakthroughs later.
It is a failure in Canada in my mind and that of others that researchers are too often bound by "goals" to get funding rather than be able to pursue fundamental knowledge for it's own sake.



> uriosity still driving force behind science
> By Helga Nowotny
> 
> Albert Einstein once said, "I have no special gift, but I am passionately curious." Certainly, Einstein was being tremendously modest. But, just as certainly, curiosity is a powerful driving force in scientific discovery. Indeed, along with talent and interest, as well as mathematical or other quantitative abilities, curiosity is a necessary characteristic of any successful scientist


http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/columns/syndicate/20060615dy0a.htm

THe article addresses your question very well

notably 



> Curiosity is insatiable and, in research, it is inextricably tied to the unforeseeability of results. Research is an endless process, with a destination that no one can predict precisely. The more that unexpected results, brought forth by research in the laboratory, are a precondition for further innovations, the more pressure there is to bring the production of knowledge under control, to direct research in specific directions, and to tame scientific curiosity. But curiosity must not be limited too severely, lest science's ability to produce new knowledge be lost


Indeed there are some really questionable grants out there.

and some completely unexpected twists



> one of the most famous new drugs of the last decade - Viagra - owes its existence to serendipity. It started its life as a potential treatment for angina, and was being tested in clinical trials. *As an angina treatment, it was pretty useless*, but then the researchers began to get reports of some unexpected side effects...


Pretty profitable bit of useless research... fortune favours the prepared mind.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I am more than happy to have countries fund apparently worthless research--provided my tax dollars aren't part of the funding. I favour a libertarian model in which future research projects are posted on the internet. People who are curious about the ideas presented can send money to these projects through PayPal or some other secure method.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I am more than happy to have countries fund apparently worthless research--provided my tax dollars aren't part of the funding. I favour a libertarian model in which future research projects are posted on the internet. People who are curious about the ideas presented can send money to these projects through PayPal or some other secure method.


Great idea, but realistically, I don't think this would ever work. Unless we could educate the public so much better that the majority would actually know enough to be able to understand, appreciate the importance of, and therefore enjoy learning about the outcomes of the research projects they were funding, I don't think there would be any appreciable money going into science at all, using this model.

What the OP, and most people, fail to understand is that most research projects generate new information that we don't know what to do with for several, sometimes many, years. The value of the research we do today won't be known for decades, and we have no reliable way of predicting in advance, what research will yield 'useful' information. Only hindsight tells us what research projects were really fruitful.

It's also worth considering that, given how little scientists are paid, allowing them to pursue their curiosity is not only a good way to motivate them to continue their work, but it is really the least we can do as a society for people who work so hard for so little and benefit us all so much.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> What the OP, and most people, fail to understand is that most research projects generate new information that we don't know what to do with for several, sometimes many, years. The value of the research we do today won't be known for decades, and we have no reliable way of predicting in advance, what research will yield 'useful' information. Only hindsight tells us what research projects were really fruitful.


But there's the rub. By those standards there is no research NOT worth pursuing. Research should be prioritized, but this suggests that all research should be pursued and funded because a scientist expresses interest in pursuing it.



bryanc said:


> It's also worth considering that, given how little scientists are paid, allowing them to pursue their curiosity is not only a good way to motivate them to continue their work, but it is really the least we can do as a society for people who work so hard for so little and benefit us all so much.


And artists, and writers, and farmers, and activists, and poets, and social workers 
and...lots of people who think they don't make enough could be motivated to continue their hard work by funding. Besides, nobody stamped "scientist" on these kids' heads as they left high school. If the work is no longer rewarding, they can try something else.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Research IS prioritized, funding IS limited, that does not opt out pure science with no specific goal in mind.
If anything to much is being allocated entirely to near term economic rewards and too little to pure science in this country.

Once more little vision in Canada.
Lucerne is an example, the Hubble etc - little immediate practical value - large costs but immense forwarding of human knowledge of the universe - small and large.

I'm Bryanc will tell you the competition for grant funding is fierce and not easily achieved success.
But only peers can really assess project proposals.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Good point, HowEver. The answer is already assumed in the question.

"Do Canadians humiliate themeselves when they perform embarassing acts in public?"


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> By those standards there is no research NOT worth pursuing.


In a perfect world, I'd agree that any research someone wanted to do should be funded. But obviously in the real world of limited resources, we have to prioritize. I think the current system actually does a good job of allocating resources on the basis of merit, but there are simply far too few resources to allocate. If Canada spent ten times as much on basic research as it currently does, it would still be a minor cost, and we would still be spending much less than other developed countries.



> lots of people who think they don't make enough could be motivated to continue their hard work by funding.


That's not what I said. I said that scientists are motivated by being allowed to pursue their curiosity. Despite the woeful levels of research funding in Canada, a few of us continue to pursue research careers here because we are allowed to go were our curiosity leads us, and that has a great deal of intangible value. Suggesting that funding should be tied exclusively to 'targeted research' (an oxymoron) would remove this value, and further reduce the number of people willing to pursue this incredibly challenging, and financially very poorly compensated, career path.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> ...this incredibly challenging, and financially very poorly compensated, career path.


Scientists of the world unite! Where is the Buzz Hargrove of academia?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Scientists of the world unite! Where is the Buzz Hargrove of academia?


That's something I've had occasion to discuss with my colleagues on a couple of occasions, and we've come to a general consensus regarding the lack of anything resembling a 'union' for scientists or academics in general. Firstly, there are faculty associations that do collective bargaining with university administrations regarding things like salary, pensions, etc. so, it's not like we have no representation at all, but fundamentally, scientists and other academics have no interest in and no time for these sorts of things. We're all focused on our research problems, and that makes us pretty easy to exploit, and very hard to organize. On the other hand, universities and research funding agencies are so underfunded that we can't really fault them for the financial constraints.

The funding problem stems from Ottawa, and the solution is for the research community to start getting more active in lobbying the politicians who allocate the money for funding universities and granting agencies like NSERC and CIHR. However, as I said, you'd have a hard time finding a scientist who'd rather do that than work in her lab. So the only people available to do that sort of thing, are the people who don't really have much passion for research, and consequently aren't really the right people to be doing it. It's a catch-22.

If you have any suggestions, I'd love to hear them.

cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Havings taxpayers fund your pursuit of things you find interesting is a result of being easy to exploit? Exploit me! Sorry, that's unfair, but the whole concept is hilarious even if twisted towards my amusement.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

HowEver said:


> I love this thread's title:
> 
> "Do countries waste money on useless research?"
> 
> How about, "Do countries spend money wisely on useful research?" as a corollary.


And who decides what is useless and what is not before the research is done?

In Canada the government spends a trivial amount of money on all research, so don't worry about your tax dollars - the government wastes more money on lunch and entertainment.

Canadian researchers don't get rich unless they work in private industry - drug company schills and the like. By and large most research in Canada is supported by the individual's work - most academic researchers "fund" their research by teaching in universities. Sometimes outside 'contracts' have to be taken to cover costs - I did demolition, environmental clean-up (bat $h!t was a speciality) and renovation finish carpentry to fund projects and I am not unique in this regard. Many academic researchers have such a story.

Eventually we hit on a biggie (link to example) which Canada wouldn't fund - we got the funds from NIDA and the project ran for more than 20 years and we are recognised as world authorities... so you can't count on Government to recognise a good idea when it jumps up and bites them.

There is no such thing as useless research because one never knows where things will go until one tries.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Havings taxpayers fund your pursuit of things you find interesting is a result of being easy to exploit? Exploit me! Sorry, that's unfair, but the whole concept is hilarious even if twisted towards my amusement.


I do see how you might find it amusing, and were it not so serious a problem for me, I'd probably agree with you.

One of the reasons I work in this field, rather than many others where I could (and have) made _vastly_ more money, is that I get to pursue my curiosity. The chances of my personal research resulting in discoveries that lead to treatments (or even cures) for cancer, arthritis, heart disease, artherosclerosis, or a variety of other human illnesses is small, but it is still reasonably likely that I will contribute something of significance. But *somebody* will discover something important, and the chances are very good that whoever it is will have been pursuing something they found interesting for entirely unrelated reasons. That's how important discoveries are made. And you can't predict in advance who's going to make those discoveries, or what they'll have been looking for when they stumble across the crucial data. So it's a good investment, despite the fact that we don't know how, when or where it will pay off.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> But *somebody* will discover something important, and the chances are very good that whoever it is will have been pursuing something they found interesting for entirely unrelated reasons. That's how important discoveries are made. And you can't predict in advance who's going to make those discoveries, or what they'll have been looking for when they stumble across the crucial data. So it's a good investment, despite the fact that we don't know how, when or where it will pay off.


I'm glad that you like what you do and that you personally made the choice to make less money for other, more important, personal preferences. I'm not kidding. It took me a while to figure out the kind of job I'd be ok with. But I still get bored fast.  

I also think Canada should increase R&D funding and take a serious look at other mechanisms to leverage more out of industry. 

But nothing said in this thread demonstrates how much should be spent (or even that more is good; I just use information + gut) or where its priority should be. Nor has it been demonstrated where the funds should go. Only some broad measures give an idea of what to do if simply matching other countries is presumed to be good, and some direction of where it goes is provided therein (not universities, if I recall correctly). 

Overall, there are just general statements about good things which apply to every funding and tax cut request made to government. The case needs to be made without just, "So it's a good investment." Every request is a "good investment" for *insert good thing* reason.

There is good evidence that implementing the latest techniques and technologies is what drives productivity and wealth. That's not research. Why bother when we can free ride? (for provocative reasons, not my belief) Science royalties may not be as much as many think (could have a lot to do with anecdotal feel versus totality). 

There are correlations between R&D funding and successful countries, but the details may not tell a nice story on where Canada's problems are (commercialization and demonstration?).

Even though my personal bias favours more research, I can understand why government must ask "why?" and expect useful answers. Being in Ottawa I also understand why that may not matter because more = votes, when done right. beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: If you're bored with your job, I suggest that government fund some research that might interest you. I hope it keeps you motivated to stay in your job.
Who knows what you might discover? Perhaps it will prove useful in the year 3000!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

HowEver said:


> (We had the leading bat specialist in the world until recently; he was hired away by another institution.)


Name of the bat guy? If he is who I think he is, he was here at my university before he went (was lured?) to Toronto.. in fact he lived in my bulding at the time (circa 1970). Damn, sometimes it is a small world...

Edit: if this is the guy I knew, his degree was from UofT, taught at Carleton, then York, now at UWO...???


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Let me put a spin on this one for you all 

How about these:

AIDS, Cancer, Diseases and common cures - Countries are putting so much research and millions of dollars into finding a cure, when some countries are too busy chopping down rain forests and killing off plant species and animals faster then researchers can record the plant species and animals. So in turn, we have killed off species which we never saw before or had a chance to see if they could do anything to benefit us. (Not that the rain forest holds all the answers)

Pharmaceutical companies waste a ton of money each year, trying to get us to buy their millions of "magic" pills that we all need to take every day of our lives for just about anything. Meanwhile researchers who are looking into more natural ways of healing and curing spend millions, and yet can't use half or all of their research in public due to being put in jail for disclosing a natural healing over the pharmaceutical companies method of prescribing pills.

How about pollution? Does Canada need to spend millions of dollars to research how cars pollute our country on the busy highways? 
How about we look to other countries who have better systems already in place and get on with it.

And what about Australia and their banning of the light bulb by 2010? Will Canada spend the next few years spending millions on research on how we possibly should follow or not follow? 

Our Canadian government alone spends useless millions or billions of dollars per year on research projects where one goes "why"? Do we need to spend anymore money on the research of how smoking may kill you? Simple, ban all cigs in Canada and problem dealt with. 

I could go on, but I don't have all night to point all the useless research that our Canadian government has done over the years, or per province or city. Point is, there are a ton of useless research projects out there where billions or millions are spent each year, when "real life" issues are at hand and the money could be spent elsewhere and wiser.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Unfortunately aside from a rant you haven't pointed out anything.
Just speculation and rhetoric without resolution suggestions or concrete example.
Tiresome.

How about we tax the churches and put it all to providing insecticide netting for Africa and other malarial areas.

No research needed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Some good points there, McGyver. Don't listen to MAcDoc--when he isn't crying over some movie, he's in a perpetual bluster.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: If you're bored with your job, I suggest that government fund some research that might interest you. I hope it keeps you motivated to stay in your job.
> Who knows what you might discover? Perhaps it will prove useful in the year 3000!


They already do, but I'd get bored of that too.  

Not doing a Phd was a difficult choice for a number of years. Now, I'm quite happy I didn't. Sure, I could've made more $$$, depending on which university hired me and what field I specialised in, but it wasn't for me. If government had just handed me $40k per year + tuition (to go to a top 20 school) I would have done it, got the Phd, and produced Research (I would still need an annual salary, expensive facilities, and maybe an assistant to help going forward). Clearly a missed opportunity on their part. On the margin, that money went against debt. Bah!

More seriously, research needs to make its case without resorting to vague statements of good or "you never know" or selected anecdotes. Those are the spin and "highlight boxes" but not the heart of a rational case for X public dollars. The discipline of research is not served by a lower logical standard to justify their funding. Still, I'd like to see it increased.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

To make a point on the study itself, I see this kind of research as quite useful actually. Without seeing the study mentioned, perhaps there was a conclusion or recommendation made on the cause of the happier kids in Holland, and that was something that the UK could use as a model in their own school system. Seems to me investing in a happy society makes some sense, and I don't see why you couldn't put this type of research result into practice. 

On a more fundamental level, scientific advancements through research are generally founded on the principles of disproving something - not proving something. Research builds on earlier work that has disproven various phenomena. This costs money. And a lot less money than duplicating previous effort. 

My 2 cents.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Eukaryotic said:


> To make a point on the study itself, I see this kind of research as quite useful actually. Without seeing the study mentioned, perhaps there was a conclusion or recommendation made on the cause of the happier kids in Holland...


Who can argue with happiness?. Fund all of these happy studies, I say, so that everyone can be happier...if not now, then in the year 2586.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

2586?! LOL

Careful, MF. You argue to much from that standpoint and it's going to be looking more and more like a case of misery loving company.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> More seriously, research needs to make its case without resorting to vague statements of good or "you never know" or selected anecdotes. Those are the spin and "highlight boxes" but not the heart of a rational case for X public dollars. The discipline of research is not served by a lower logical standard to justify their funding. Still, I'd like to see it increased.


I completely understand and agree with your point, but I can't think of any good way to address it. There may well be a rigorous way of determining the actual value of academic research to society (over X years), but I have no idea how this sort of study could be done (I'm a developmental biologist.... I don't even know what field such a study would fall into).

I'm just operating from my experience. When I worked in government, I saw a lot of waste and bureaucracy. When I worked in industry, rather surprisingly, I saw just as much waste, although not as much bureaucracy. My experience in academic research labs has been that everyone works very hard, and maximum value is extracted from every dollar of grant money. So it certainly seems efficient in that sense. However, I'll be the first to admit that research is not an efficient business... lots of dead ends, and circuitous routes are taken, but that's because we don't know where the answers we're looking for will be found in advance (and, even worse, we're often looking for the wrong answers, and it takes several years of effort to realize that we've been looking at the problem wrong).

I'd obviously agree with you that research funding in Canada should be increased, but I don't know how to determine what the 'right' level might be. Perhaps we should just go with the average of other developed nations?

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> research needs to make its case without resorting to vague statements of good or "you never know" or selected anecdote


That's the heart of the matter - make its case to who???
Really only a community of peers can evaluate a "case" - can gov or citizenry really "evaluate" effectively??

Empirically - sort of like advertising is an "intangible" - nations that spend on R&D at higher percentages of GDP do well - taking an equivalent spending % is a start. It might be argued as a small rather wealthy nation that a somewhat higher % may be justified or considered a desirable goal. ( the graph seems to bear that out )

It appears from this graph that based on papers and citations we are below par in spending but do well despite that. ( pat on the back to Bryanc et al )
Certainly not as well as say the UK tho..










Of course this is academic output - papers and citations - it could be argued that Denmark and Finland notably and even Sweden and Switzerland perhaps have more "tangibles" as result of their spending % and ignore the academic/pure research aspect for more pragmatic goals. No bad thing in my mind.

Bottom line tho we appear to be underspending as a percentage of GDP against our peer economies.

Now that could be skewed by the interwoven relationship with the US.

A small population nation may not be able to afford the level of "pure research" more populous ones can - it took all of Europe to build Lucerne.

Even if we bring the % up to say 2% - how to determine the "mix" that best serves the national goals - who's the chef.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> That's the heart of the matter - make its case to who???
> Really only a community of peers can evaluate a "case" - can gov or citizenry really "evaluate" effectively??


For which specific research, it's experts. But the total amount of public money and at which points in the process of R&D? That's a public policy issue.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes it is public policy and there are two aspects in my view.

a) level of funding against peer states - we are deficient tho we do rather well in academic results despite that.

So the question is should we bring total spending in line with others......I'd be in favour of that over say debt reduction in order of priorities

b) focus on academic results of the spending versus pragmatic

My sense is - that since we do okay on the academic - new money might best be focused on the pragmatic - the oil sands initiative and other "green" research would seem to be "best use".

If we see the % of GDPrise to 2% AND results oriented initiatives from the INCREASED funding. I'd be content.

••••

Bryanc - I know you support pure research as do I but how do you as an insider in some respects see the current split between pure research and pragmatic??

••••

However - would you group arts funding in the same manner as R&D??... seems a bit of a red herring...I mean tourism is another area as well.
I suspect each has a different set invest/reward/judgement of worth criteria that cannot be applied universally.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> - would you group arts funding in the same manner as R&D??...


A good point, since each group with expertise could argue that only its own members have the expertise to decide ho money is best spent.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Bryanc - I know you support pure research as do I but how do you as an insider in some respects see the current split between pure research and pragmatic??



That's a good question, and something that I think deserves more public discussion. As much as I hate to be predictable about this, I want to point out that over the past decade or so there has already been a huge shift in funding priority from 'basic' to 'applied/clinical' research in Canada, so I have to disagree with your suggestion that any increase in research budgets be allocated to 'applied research.' Because applied research is easier to justify to the public and most likely to generate photo-ops for politicians, when funding gets tight, applied research is the last to get cut. Over the past few decades applied research has not been starved for funding the way basic research has, and it is actually doing fairly well. Furthermore, applied research is much more likely to be able to solicit matching funds or other money from industry partners, as these sorts of projects are, by definition, more likely to yield patentable processes or technologies.

On the topic of your graph, I'd also like to point out that the values for 'share of publications' and 'share of citations' are _absolute_ values, whereas the values for '% of GDP spent on research' are _proportionate_ values. Thus, despite the fact that the UK and Germany spend just over 2% of their GDP on research and generate about 6% of the published research whereas Canada spends somewhat less than 2% and generates just over 4% of the published research, it's important to be aware of the fact that the GDPs of the UK and Germany are much larger than Canada's. If we re-did that graph so that it showed the amount of publishable research each country generated _per dollar spent_ Canada would be at or very near the top of the list.

I don't suggest that this is because Canada is somehow populated by better scientists, but rather that Canadian scientists have been so starved for money for so long, we've learned to be extremely efficient with our research funds. The only drawback of increasing Canada's research budget might be the relaxation of this pressure to be efficient, but I think the tradition of parsimony is now well established in Canadian research labs, so it's not really a major concern.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I agree that Canada is very proficient in getting academic results for the dollars spent.
But if we look at other smaller but very successful nations they don't show the excellent academic results Canada has but clearly they find it in their public interest to spend more than we do.

That's why I would suggest we look closely at their mix and see why they go that route. Perhaps they are more successful at translating research into pragmatic industrial and societal results and so focus less on pure academic.

Without examining each country it's hard to make a case for any one approach.
The only thing that seems clear is we don't spend as much on a GDP basis as our competitors.

In your view how much of our research community is lost to the US due to lack of funding in Canada.

ie are we using public money to train researchers and then losing that value to the US??


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> In your view how much of our research community is lost to the US due to lack of funding in Canada.
> 
> ie are we using public money to train researchers and then losing that value to the US??


Of those that we loose, I'd venture that nearly 100% go due to better funding in the US. As to what proportion we loose, that's tough to judge, but it's a significant drain.

If the Democrats win in 2008, and reduce/reverse some of the egregious decisions the Bush administration has made WRT research funding and regulation in the US, the floodgates will open again, and many of Canada's best researchers will move south. We've enjoyed a reprieve during the past several years, due to the anti-intellectual climate in the US, which has dramatically reduced the rate at which Canadian researchers migrate south (in fact, there's been a reverse migration going on since 2004... faculty vacancies at Canadian universities have been swamped with applications from US academics looking to get out from under the Taliban).

So it does seem to be a good time to start fixing our research funding problem.

As it happens, I just heard a rumor today, that the upper echelons of the CFI (one of the major Canadian granting agencies) are expecting that the program will be cut if the Conservatives win a majority. CFI provides start-up funding for new faculty, and is one of the only agencies that does so. Apparently the Harper government is openly hostile to research, and the folks at CFI have started looking for other jobs in case the Conservatives get a majority and follow-through on this plan to axe the program.

Cheers


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

I think the original finding of this article can be useful. 

You measure levels of happiness in children in a bunch of communities.... another study 25 years ago measured socioeconomic variables in various communities... another study 4 years from now measures different techniques of teaching in these communities... a study conducted 10 years ago measured child nutrition in these communities... and on and on and so on. Once you get enough seemingly 'useless' variables measured, you can actually correlate them statistically, and make the connections that lead to public policy. We need as many variables measured (and updated) as possible to explain the world.

One of the ways in which our brain learns and makes new ideas is to create connections between different previously unconnected peices of knowledge. If your adult brain lacked experience and knowledge, you'd be less creative, inventive, and prone to make mistakes that many would intuite or see ahead of time by 'connecting the dots'. I think this parallels in research somewhat.

A lot of what people think of as redundancy in research is in fact using new methods of measurement, updating research, and testing the reliability of other's research. I'd say that redundancy is least commonly a failure to review the literature.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I've only skimmed over this thread so I can't really comment on the content, but I can tell you that in my experience no matter how useful the research being done in this world is there is always _someone_ who thinks it's useless.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------

