Funding tends to be a constraint with larger studies, and it's best to keep studies focused anyway — less confounding variables. Here, I'll pontificate a bit.

Funding tends to be a constraint with larger studies, and it's best to keep studies focused anyway — less confounding variables. Here, I'll pontificate a bit. For instance, study 1 finds that Ozempic is associated with a reduced risk of X. Study 2 is now funded to see if the association can be experimentally reproduced to establish a causative relationship. Competing institution gets Study 3 funded to test competing drug Mounjaro, reaches same conclusion. Study 4 by another institution finds same conclusion with a drug that acts in an entirely different manner, Buproprion. Study 5 by yet another institution finds similar results with amphetamines. Study 6 is funded on the premise that there's an underlying mechanism that needs to be explored, gets funding to study caloric restriction, gets similar results. Meanwhile, study 2 finds a causative relationship between Ozempic and X, concluding experimentally that Ozempic achieves X by inducing calorie restriction, which concurs with study 6. I'm oversimplifying. But you see where I'm going with this. Much easier to both control and fund the smaller studies than a giant one, and you develop more knowledge in the process. --- Also, I'm not an academic, so I could be wildly off base. Would appreciate a gut check by someone who actually does this for a living.