How much research is worth the trees it destroys, or what it costs? | Eastern North Carolina Now

This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    Now we learn that a significant portion is fraudulent

    Certainly our well-informed Beaufort Observer readers know about the recent climate-change research fraud. And then there is the little-known story of the pfiesteria outbreaks in the 1990s. In that instance millions of dollars were poured into research and a bureaucracy ("fast response teams") were created, all to find that the little booger simply disappeared. Research indicates that there was more hysteria than pfiesteria in much of the research (Shoemaker & Lawson, 2007). Some researchers (Morris, 2006, et. al.) found that there was no health risk. But "more study is needed to actually determine whether that is indeed true or not." Indeed, both the states of Maryland and North Carolina spend millions studying the issue. They never found the cause, and so they never developed an "intervention" but the problem appears to have gone away on its own. So did the grant money.

    Were space here to permit, we could produce a long list of such research projects that never produced hardly any return on investment (ROI) except for the researchers and their institutions, which collected 'indirect costs' to the tune of 15-20%.

    The fundamental problem we're talking about is research that has relatively little or no value, and indeed sometimes does more harm than good; such as the climate change debacle.

    Having said that, we should hasten to say that some research indeed produces good ROI. A portion, albeit minute, of the research done in recent years has produced phenomenal results. Consider the lifesaving drugs, equipment and procedures. And that list is long, but the list that contains the useless research projects is much, much longer...and more expensive.

    So why do we waste so much money on bad research?

    Those of us who have been researchers know that an astonishing amount of research, both basic and applied, is poorly done and one reason for this is that it is done for its own sake in all too many instances. Researchers need to pack curriculum vitae. Institutions need large numbers in their reports. Even funding agencies need to get rid of their money. That's their job...to give the money away to the researchers. But apply the standard of "impact on practice" to most of the research done today and an overwhelming portion comes up short on that metric.

    Some of us with experience in the field know another dirty little secret that few are willing to admit, much less talk about. That is, an alarming amount of the research done these days is fraudulent. That is what got the climate changers tripped. But we would suggest that bogus climate change research is but the tip of the iceberg.

    In an article in the highly respected journal Nature (highly respected in research circles) last week we learned that officials in the European Union who officiate most of the research done there have reported that they have unearthed a gigantic scam that may have stolen over $72 million by the use of bogus research studies. Indications are the studies were manufacturered for the purpose of defrauding the funders, including the European Union.

    Click here to read the story.

    And if you believe that this story does not illustrate a problem we have in the United States, we have a bridge in Brooklyn that research shows would make you an excellent deal.

    And if you have doubts about what we're saying and while you're at Nature click on this link to review some of the work that is being done. Here you will find, for example, a study that determined that living in crowded urban areas is more stressful than living in rural areas. There's more depression, anxiety and serious mental disorder such as schizophrenia in such places as Chicago and Detroit than in Chocowinity or Aurora. Do tell. And there's another that determined that its hard to beat gasoline as an energy source. They found that ethanol just does not have the juice needed. What a shame the Beaufort County Economic Development Commission didn't read that one before they went courting Agri-Ethanol Products to build a big still in Aurora. But "research showed that ethanol was the fuel of the future" according to our local Economic Developer. Whether that was an example of flimsy research or fraud remains to be known for sure. We know some of the characters in the AEP thing went to prison but we're not sure all of those who should have did. We'd need another study to determine that.