From: rsw@therandymon.com   
      
   On 2015-08-26, Hils  wrote:   
   > On 26/08/15 06:05, RS Wood wrote:   
   >> On 2015-08-25 21:00:06 +0300, JAB said:   
   >>   
   >>> Children who come from book-friendly homes show signs of higher   
   >>> brain activation.   
   >>>   
   >>> WoW!  More of your research dollars finding out what we knew was   
   >>> true...   
   >>   
   >> Great conclusion, but I was thinking the same: we already studied   
   >> this and made the same conclusion ages ago.  What's the point?   
   >>   
   >> You'd think research dollars were scarce, carefully hoarded, and   
   >> invested penuriously (ignore the exception of big pharma marching to   
   >> the beat of a different drum).  This kind of headline, or all those   
   >> other headlines where people get funded to investigate the impact of   
   >> social media on the sexual habits of college lesbians in women-only   
   >> schools (insert your own ridiculous headline here if you take offense   
   >> to the lesbians), makes me wonder if research money is as scarce as   
   >> that.   
   >   
   > Public research spending (or at least a portion of it) could be   
   > determined by public ballot. It would add some spice to journals such   
   > as New Scientist and Scientific American, as would-be researchers put   
   > their cases to the public. It would also encourage public interest in   
   > science, and more honesty and openness among research scientists.   
      
   An interesting proposition.  It would also lead to the immediate   
   creation of a whole new sphere of lobbying and public   
   pressure/manipulation - imagine the kind of crap that would wind up on   
   television along the way of political adverts.   
      
   Still, it's worth a try.  Getting the casual consumer to care in the   
   slightest about matters of science is an exercise in futility.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)