23 ms·
But it's uncertain whether simply pouring more money into the funding hopper would generally result in studies with larger sample sizes, or whether it would jus
by leoc 8y ago
But it's uncertain whether simply pouring more money into the funding hopper would generally result in studies with larger sample sizes, or whether it would just result in a larger number of surveys with a sample size similar to the deficient ones we see today, as a larger number of scientists manage to cling by their fingertips to the gravy train. After all, there's presumably little good reason why we couldn't have fewer but better studies today, at existing funding levels.
- Broken_Hippo 8y agoYou could be reasonable and make larger sample sizes and so on requirements. While it isn't certain that simply pouring money into funding hoppers results in more studies, it is pretty certain that larger sample sizes (and things like this) cost more money. It is prudent to give enough for these things. If you want to have more accountability with money, build it in. You might find it costs more or less than current funding levels - I'm going to guess costs will vary with sort of funding. Use equipment funds for equipment. Give researchers and their staff actual, decent, steady wages not reliant on results. (A "negative" result isn't negative, after all, for it disproves something). And so on.