23
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Redkid1324@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

While I agree this administration went too far in not funding stuff, there were A LOT of grants that were useless and frivolous.

[-] ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago

I’m genuinely curious what you and others who share your thoughts have in mind when they say there are a lot of useless and frivolous scientific studies. Can you please share some examples, I'd like to learn more about them.

As far as I know, receiving government funding for a scientific study is a highly competitive process. Proposals are examined by qualified experts who evaluate their merit, relevance, and scientific rigor long before money is awarded.

I can understand why non-scientists might jump to the wrong conclusions, especially if they only ever see sensational headlines or oversimplified editorials. But this is exactly why it’s so important to recognize our own limits and defer to the people who actually work in these fields. It takes maturity and intellectual humility to admit when something is outside our wheelhouse.

Curious people and scientists alike know to read past the headline, because that’s where the actual knowledge lives. The studies I know of that are most often mocked as “frivolous” are examples of how misleading a surface-level reading can be:

“Drunk ants fall mostly on their right side.” This is actually an urban-myth-tier claim. There has never been a funded study or published paper demonstrating a one-sided “drunk ant” effect.

“Cocaine makes honey bees dance differently.” The bee study wasn’t about amusing scientists with drugged insects. It examined how cocaine affects reward pathways and communication. This research was relevant to understanding addiction and motivation across species, including humans.

“Do woodpeckers get headaches?” This wasn’t a joke experiment. Woodpeckers were used as a natural model to study how repeated head impacts can occur without concussive injury, producing insights into human head trauma and designing better safety gear.

Ultimately, federal funding for scientific research is rigorous and competitive. Truly frivolous projects rarely make it through the approval process. What often looks absurd to the public is, in reality, carefully designed work grounded in expertise we don’t always see or fully understand.

This is exactly why listening to experts matters, and why it's so dangerous that American policy makers are completely discounting scientific knowledge and expertise.

[-] Redkid1324@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

First of all, I would like to commend you on your calm and respectful demeanor. I comprised a few in a comment below. I am interested in information on the approval process and what goes into that. On the outside, it appears that it's just a sign off sheet and popularity contest so I'd like to educate myself on that process more.

[-] ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

Thank you for that. I do my best to be direct without sounding antagonistic or demeaning. It's always been hard to have a good conversation on the internet, but I feel that lemmy - for the most part - has a good community with a strong sense of equanimity. I've always loved learning new things, so I really appreciate your open-mindedness and candor about wanting to learn more. Cheers!

load more comments (6 replies)
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
23 points (100.0% liked)

New York Times gift articles

1298 readers
55 users here now

Share your New York Times gift articles links here.

Rules:

Info:

Tip:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS