4 ms·
> This article makes it sound like the _majority_ of research funding is coming from industry, very little from government. Your implication that, were the res
by erichocean 8y ago
> This article makes it sound like the _majority_ of research funding is coming from industry, very little from government.
Your implication that, were the research funded by government (or some other non-profit entity), it would somehow be "better" is false. The source of the funding in all cases influences the allowed results, and determines the likelihood of future follow-on funding.
If anything, government (at least in the US) is responsible for some truly harmful dietary advice, and funds researchers who support its policy positions.
- mr_tristan 8y agoThat was the article's implication, which I'm not totally convinced of either. My sense is that the main problem is still the focus on "positive" research results, and a complete lack of sharing of anything that wasn't successful. "That research doesn't hold up in this case" isn't really a statement anyone seems to publish much. _Maybe_ that's exacerbated by private funding, though I think it's just generally a cultural problem within the scientific community. Perhaps a public source of funding would enable the opening up and sharing of "negative" research results, of which I think there is considerably more data for. But, given that universities haven't really done that at all to my knowledge, I'm skeptical of that as well. The last paragraphs of this article are what struck me as "anti private funding".