I'm not anti-science, I'm anti performative science for the sake of "doing science". And anti "we can't do proper science so let's throw up our hands". Helpin

I'm not anti-science, I'm anti performative science for the sake of "doing science". And anti "we can't do proper science so let's throw up our hands". Helping individual kids and yes, relying on anecdotes would do much more good in this specific scenario than a study. Let me explain. Doing a "simple" study like this is nigh-impossible within the science establishment we have today. Like you said, let me try. Let's walk through the steps. A PI would have to get a grant to help not the underserved/underprivileged kids, but rather those who are perceived to have an advantage. They have to work with hundreds of schools (gifted kids are rare). Within that set of hundreds of schools they have to control for cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds and so on. Having succeeded they'll have to get this published (and probably fight some accusations of being elitist in the process). All I am saying is: this PI better already have tenure. This problem is not just about gifted kids. A commonly heard complaint in the field of psychiatry for example is that we only study the minds with pathologies. We don't at all look at how to improve things for healthy people. Come to think of it, that is true in medicine in general.