G'day Sam,
You wouldn't even get to finish your first research paper. If you think you get a grant and are then free to pursue the topic the way you want, then you still are not aware of how the system works. This may be the case for those with significant authority or prestige, but generally for lower rung persons, the research has stages and milestones that have to be met in order for funding to contiune. Depending of course on how much the funding is for.
In my case, funding was granted provisionally, pending receipt of "test" reports. So I analysed about 30 climate change research papers peripherally and eight in depth. I was sent a few hundred in total. It was "suggested" what papers should be analysed. Now I never actually saw any research money at all, despite carrying out work prescribed in the grant and supposed to have been funded to the point of discontinuance because it was the fifth research paper that I found fundamental flaws in the basic data, known by the researchers, and yet the research ignored the flaws and continued on for an enormous amount of money further.
I've done research previously in global warming. Then it was as an assistant. Every week the primary researcher had to go and beg for some money. I remember he kept on telling his students not to go into climate studies because there just wasn't any grant money available and even if you "fudged" it to include something topical in the research aims, there just wasn't enough interest to sustain anything for long. Since I haven't seen this person's name on papers I figure he missed out on the global warming research boom.
I've done other science research, as a primary. Yes, I had to report on what we were doing and how we were spending the money but other than that, there was no interference or suggestions as to what we should do. Admittedly it wasn't a lot of money but the impression I was left with was that the funders didn't care whether we proved our theory or disproved it, as long as we advanced the science somehow. I really don't know what would have happened if we had gone to them and said: "Sorry, we're stuck. We can't really prove or disprove this." I guess at that point they would have suggested the paper be written on what we had and funding would have stopped. But that is not the same as KNOWING that if you don't mention global warming as a cause, you will not get any future funding at all. Now the question is how do you prove this happens.
It was one of the reasons for the very long post. Because it is almost impossible to prove the absence of grants. But you can demonstrate the pressures involved by just looking at the NewScientist press release and suggesting other reasons for the nomination of those that do not agree with the doctrine of global warming than the explanations in the article. Ones that actually make more sense.
Actually I am astounded that they used Mann as an example of someone that has been "attacked" and an example of what they seemed to be pushing as some sinister plot. His work was rubbished, but mostly politely, by a great many experts in climate science, including a number who agree with global warming because it was bad science. To twist that into something else, imho, is reprehensible. The article implies "Don't worry if you cheat in global warming studies. We'll protect you by calling those that disagree with you pawns of the oil industry or deliberate attacks on the IPCC by something that sounds really sinister".
And, sigh, this too has turned out to be too long.
Regards
Richard
