Jebus christ, you are a tool. You have shown that you know NOTHING about grants, the review process, or science. Answer my questions!Originally posted by: Deudalus
Please show me your credentials.
Show me what you have done.
Show me the grants you have written, given, applied for, and received.
Better yet, why don't you stop and do some very simple reasoning.
A scientist who is receiving money that is basically supporting him and his work based on grants has a vested interest in proving his case. That is why you rarely see a scientist come back and say "I appreciate all of this money that you gave me and appreciate that I could get more for research on this subject, but unfortunately its all bullshit."
1) What are your conclusions on the direct relationship between grants and salary?
2) What are the references of papers/books to sources for all your conclusions about the specifics of scientific work?
Here, i will let you in on a little "secret." Grants, at the time of application, are reviewed for their scientific relevance and feasibility. If your research ideas are neither (bullshit, in dumbdalus speak), it will NOT be funded. Here is another "secret." Disproving a current hypothesis is as much information to the scientific community as proving one. In addition, lying about results to get funding/refunded results in the end of ones career. You have proven yourself to be clueless and unwilling to let go of your tin foil hat conspiracy theories about something you know NOTHING about. That is the definition of ignorance.