4
Do you believe there is a meaningful distinction between government directing research priorities versus government directing scientific conclusions?
Results
(173 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- Yes — these are fundamentally different types of influence and should be governed by different standardsuser-475346The former involves the government acting as a good steward of public funds by guiding research priorities and the latter is essentially governmental scientific censorship which may lead to short-term gains for the administration directing this action but will ultimately undermine the public's faith in research.
- Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-643805Government has the right to reflect concerns of the electorate concerning research priorities, but when a vocal minority of the electorate influences research priorities on the basis of political bias, the entire system, and our respect for evidence, suffers. I could just as easily have chosen "No" as my answer here, but I wanted to recognize that public concerns are real (I think of Peter Sandman's adage, "Risk = Hazard + Outrage"), although often misguided.
- Yes — these are fundamentally different types of influence and should be governed by different standardsuser-781581For example, governmental entities, such as NIH and CDC, perform their own scientific research. On the contrary, some governmental officials may misinterpret the data of scientific papers to come up with improper policies.
- Yes — these are fundamentally different types of influence and should be governed by different standardsuser-957551Those who have the funding capacity are the ones dictating priorities. I am hopeful, however, that the funders are making decisions about priorities based on a thorough review of the research literature in the context of actual problems. The government should not play around and "weaponize" conclusions from empirical experiments.
- Yes — these are fundamentally different types of influence and should be governed by different standardsuser-616480The response categories to this question are leading, and do not directly match the question. Yes, there is a meaningful distinction, but whether they should be governed by different standards is a separate question.
- Yes — these are fundamentally different types of influence and should be governed by different standardsuser-504565goverment has the big picture of a counties needs, so has the right to direct research priorities in most needed scientific areas. But directing scientific conclusions is totally unacceptabe.
- Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-284488There are issues when conclusions seem predetermined by ideology.
- Yes — these are fundamentally different types of influence and should be governed by different standardsuser-183027Government can influence the prioritization of research topics based on the need assessment done usually by the authorities. Conclusions are something else. Government should not manipulate them.
- Yes — these are fundamentally different types of influence and should be governed by different standardsuser-353196Yes, I think these are fundamentally different types of influence and should be governed by different standards. Thus, setting research priorities is an appropriate and often necessary function of government, as it reflects societal needs, public‑interest goals, and long‑term strategic investments. However, directing scientific conclusions crosses a critical boundary. Conclusions must emerge from independent inquiry, peer review, and methodological rigour, not from political expectations or administrative preferences.
In my view, while priority‑setting shapes what is studied, I think directing conclusions may attempt to shape, for example, what the science must say. In this sense, this undermines scientific integrity, distorts the evidentiary landscape, and risks eroding public trust. Maintaining a clear institutional separation between these two forms of influence is therefore essential for preserving the independence, credibility, and long‑term stability of scientific knowledge. - Yes — these are fundamentally different types of influence and should be governed by different standardsuser-801799These are fundamentally different things. The government can legitimately steer which areas of research are prioritised, but the conslusions should be based on the evidence, even if this may be inconvenient for the government. I think this distinction is 'obvious' but maybe it is not given the question being asked here. It should be communiciated very clearly so it is 'obvious' to all.
- Yes — these are fundamentally different types of influence and should be governed by different standardsuser-164084Government should strictly focus on directing research priorities and avoid any attempt at influencing research outcomes. Because by so doing they will undermine the integrity of scientific outcomes and public trust in research communications.
- Yes — these are fundamentally different types of influence and should be governed by different standardsuser-622993government absolutely has the discretion to choose what types of research it funds, but it should not interfere with the conclusions of that funded research .
- Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-294159NA
- Uncertain — I have not thought carefully about this distinctionuser-33865But areas that have strong support from the goverment, tend to be trendy in the scientific community. The important think is perhaps that there are controls that allow for other research lines to get funded as well. Perhaps the scientific community need to be educated in how to be a politician as well
- Yes — these are fundamentally different types of influence and should be governed by different standardsuser-547401Absolutely yes. Government may be involved in prioritization of research activities by area. Government may have and should have information available to them to make decisions on priorities. For example, an outbreak of infectious disease warrants acceleration of suitable vaccine or treatment, an unusually high incidence of particular type of cancer which is associated with an environmental disaster or exposure etc. Scientific conclusions however cannot be influenced by the Government or political processes.
- Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-69551The difference between setting research priorities and directing conclusions is conceptually meaningful, and it should be maintained for ethical and institutional reasons.
However, it is not absolute in practice. Indeed, when governments are selective in their funding of research or defund any research areas that may yield inconvenient findings they indirectly determine the body of evidence from which conclusions are inferred. Moreover, this can become something like a soft version of conclusion management. This is how the distinction is real but permeable, and both facets require transparency and outside scrutiny. - Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-508016Both the priorities and the directing scientific conclusions could be results of the same government policy and ideology. These are strongly linked. The promoted research lines nourish tendentious conclusions.
- Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-541511Directing priorities in theory should focus on what areas of research would most benefit the interests of the nation at the time. However these lines are blurred in practicality as grants are written in ways to achieve priority in order to secure funding.
- Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-935064Framing the work package can have profound effects on the outcome of a project. If it is tilted in favour of a particular policy the resulting report(s) will be biased and lead to less than favourable policy implications.
- Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-659873It depends if the research priorities have a bias towards politically-sensitive topics or not (e.g. the safety of vaccination, or GM adoption)
- Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-890708要相信科学的真实性。
- Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-113307Research should be open and transparent, but the priorities for government are not always based on the best scientific principles.
- Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-126116Choosing not to fund a line of research is not the same as rejecting its possible findings. Nevertheless, if a field receives little or no support over time, the evidence base in that area will remain limited. This lack of evidence can ultimately shape how questions are understood and what conclusions appear most strongly supported. As a result, funding priorities can have important downstream effects on the development of scientific knowledge.
- Yes — these are fundamentally different types of influence and should be governed by different standardsuser-5378The caveat to my response is that ‘government directed priorities’ is not controlling what research is funded. Rather, it is a request for research on topics that are important to an agency’s mission to help support policies that better serve the people and their communities. Research priorities do not direct research outcomes, but they may influence the number of researchers in an field of research – that is, what is ‘hot’. It appears AI has become a hot area of research but that does not mean only research supporting growth and use of AI is funded. Research that looks at the negative consequences on communities, mental health, job loss, etc. are also funded. Government-directed research conclusions is the result of bias in the funding process or in selection of people who serve on expert panels.
- Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-259812There is a real distinction between these two things as long as the government is acting honestly. Government guiding research priorities sometimes becomes necessary as without the government intervention research in certain priority areas which may not be commercially viable or of concern to only a small group of people may suffer.
- Yes — these are fundamentally different types of influence and should be governed by different standardsuser-555529The first is probably necessary, and the latter should never happen, in fact.
- Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-349707Political restrictions on valid research areas has a long term impact.
- No — controlling what gets studied is effectively a form of controlling what conclusions are reacheduser-915Finally, It's a decision-making process depending on my sounding recommendations
- Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-960476Partially, and the distinction is real but easier to draw on paper than in practice. Setting research priorities and directing scientific conclusions are genuinely different things, nobody seriously argues that governments shouldn't fund research according to public health needs or national priorities. The problem is that sustained control over what gets funded, over many years and across multiple administrations, quietly shapes the evidence base in ways that aren't always visible. If certain questions never get asked, certain populations never get studied, certain uncertainties never get resolved, the scientific record reflects those absences whether anyone intended it to or not. So priority-setting isn't neutral just because it stops short of telling researchers what conclusions to reach. It should be transparent, subject to independent review, and reasonably insulated from short-term political pressures. That's a different and more manageable problem than protecting conclusions from direct interference, but its still a problem worth taking seriously.
- Partially — the distinction is real, but controlling priorities can predetermine conclusions over timeuser-740862Depending on the line of government, the steering of research may lead to distortions over time
- No — controlling what gets studied is effectively a form of controlling what conclusions are reacheduser-921616On paper, setting research priorities looks distinct from dictating conclusions but in reality they are deeply interwined. When scientific frameworks lack a constitutional foundation to protect them as a long-term state policies, they become entirely vulnerable to short-term government agenda. A countries’s primary scientific body should operate as an objective entity, addressing national gaps, strengths and human rights through a purely scientific lens. However when an administration treats science as a temporary political tool rather than a permanent national strategy they use funding priorities as a weapon by deciding which questions get funded and which are financially starved. A shifting government effectively predetermines what truths are allowed to exist overtime. Controlling the budget is just a quieter, institutional way of controlling the final conclusions.