> Now, straight to the point, who's going to pay for the repeated research to prove the first one? Who is and who should are two different questions. The body

> Now, straight to the point, who's going to pay for the repeated research to prove the first one? Who is and who should are two different questions. The body who funded the original research should be best placed to fund the verification of the research. If the research isn't compelling enough to fund verification then why was it funded in the first place? And if the principle research group is requesting additional funding for more research that builds on the initial unverified research then that sounds like poor governance. I realise that this simplistic view gets messy and confused when research is really academic led innovation and incubation.