Concentrating research funding can make science more propaganda-proof

Evidence

This observation leads to a surprising lesson for how we should fund and report science. You might think it is generally better to have more scientists work on a problem, as this will generate more ideas and greater independence. But under real-world circumstances, where a funding agency has a fixed pot of money to devote to a scientific field, funding more scientists is not always best. Our models suggest that it is better to give large pots of money to a few groups, which can use the money to run studies with more data, than to give small pots of money to many people who can each gather only a few data points. The latter distribution is much more likely to generate spurious results for the propagandist. — Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, The Misinformation Age, 384

Categorization

• SEED: An essay could challenge the default assumption that funding more scientists means better science — when a propagandist is in play, dispersed small grants create more exploitable spurious results.
• DEEPTHINKING: The tension between democratic diversity of science and vulnerability to cherry-picking is dense — it reframes how we think about the replication crisis as a propaganda vulnerability.
• XREF: connects to: Industrial selection leaves no uncorrupted group to correct errors — Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False…, 412; Low-powered studies disproportionately feed industry propaganda — Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False…, 386; Small studies more often yield spurious results a propagandist can exploit — Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False…, 365 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Low-powered studies disproportionately feed industry propaganda #corroborates (0.72) — Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, The Misinformation Age, 386