Basically, studies (and the progress of certain sciences) flow thusly: 1) A scientist has a outlandish idea, but is able to convince someone to fund him, albei

Basically, studies (and the progress of certain sciences) flow thusly: 1) A scientist has a outlandish idea, but is able to convince someone to fund him, albeit limitedly. 2) Scientist from the previous step publishes results of his study. If results seem worth following up on, continue to step 3. Otherwise, go back to step 1. 3) Another scientist looks at the previous scientist's results and attempts to get funding for an even more ambitious study, building upon previous scientist's work. This scientist may be trying to refute or support the previous scientist's findings. 4) This new scientist publishes. If his results support the results of the previous scientist, go back to step 3. If the results refute the results of the previous scientist, go back to step 1. This process applies to any studies that are sufficiently "costly", thus mitigating risk. This is relevant, of course, because similar studies often elicit comments about why the study is insufficient. And, for a certain class of them, they always will be.