Recently, I was surprised because in my city, a private university, has funded a project which title/objective is to assess the efficacy of an antimicrobial therapy for an indication which has been demonstrated effectively enough for more than 3 decades, even included in multiple systematic reviews and meta-analysis (included Cochrane), as well clinical evidence-based guidelines. Then, the only justification is in the city this has not been done, but, what would be really different from the rest of the World, Latin America and other multiple cities in Colombia???
Sorry Dibakar, but I did not understood your point and if you agree or not with my point.
An antibiotic may have been effective for three decades. However, the microbes for which it was developed may become resistant over time. There may also be an emergence of new strains of the microbe, which may make the antibiotic less effective. Further more, there might be a clinical observation of side effects or toxicity that have not been scientifically documented. An organization such as the university may want to provide the fund for the research into these gaps in existing literature. To buttress my point, penicillin that was a wonder drug several decades ago is hardly ever used now. Through research, penicillin has been modified into more effective variants, which are far more effective.
I am sorry to say it, but I don't see the gap. And clearly there are many other potential Research questions that undoubtedly deserve more attention, work and funding!!!!
Sir, nothing is stagnant in science. All scientific theories get revised with time. Only research, which may sometimes look absurd to many, can change scientific theories. In the process of carrying out such a research, there may be a lucky find (serendipity), which may improve on existing knowledge.
The study is nothing more than of limited value. Then, based on your comments anything even with many supporting answer,would be repeated. Obviously science is dynamics but looking on relevant questions! Even more, talking about resources-constrained settings where funding should be used very rationally!
Research is intended to generate new knowledge. I am surprised this got funding if there is such a current strong body of knowledge on the topic.
This funding was not peer-reviewed by experts in the field.
Several scientists in the Researchgate are not in a position to know if the funding was corruptly awarded but it is not uncommon in several third world countries to find that researchers who are least endowed get all the funding while the honest and hardworking researchers are turned down.
Well, this should not be considered a problem of "coruption", is negligence, which is a completely different matter. Unexperience not good researchers, nor recognized by the national board of scientists, serving as "experts", would consider anything as good, when is not.
Sometimes it can be a matter of a new perspective to an old problem. It happens, in example, when a phenomenon has been extensively approached in quantitative means but lacks of qualitative explanation (o viceversa).
Under that understanding I would provide funding.
Also when basic but not aplied knowledge is vast in a certain theme, it would be enoughly justified to provide funding to actually develop applied research for problem solution.
But in the absence of a new approach or a new topic, funding would not be pertinent.
The kew word is relevance, if there is no relevance in the justification on this new approach, it does not deserve any funding! it will also depend of the independence of the group of reviewers who approve or disapprove the fundings.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Statistical Techniques
- Meta-Analysis