This is being presented as new research discovery, involves two universities and probably had a very large budget; groundbreaking? I think not!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37220208
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37220208
Groundbreaking research?
- Thread starter Macaroon
- Start date
Wow, now who'd have thought that, I for one think it's research funding very well spent! Reminds me a bit of an American university that spent ten years and millions of dollars to discover that goldfish became aggressive when drunk. They had, apparently, spent the ten years slowly adding drops of vodka to a fish tank to achieve this cutting edge result!
I can only guess what the end of day drinkies sessions must have been like!
I can only guess what the end of day drinkies sessions must have been like!
Without what appears to be frivolous or pointless research many useful things would not be available. I can see a maker of clothing being very interested in this. New line in odourless sweat shirts, whose wife wouldn't buy you one? Only one possibility.
Yes, I thought of that also. It just seemed that would be the type research more appropriately done by those clothing manufacturers rather than a university.
That said, I suppose it's also possible those companies might well be writing the grants to the university to fund the research; and of course if the students are involved it becomes a practical learning experience as well. Particularly if they also get internships with the companies.
However I still agree with the OP that the word "groundbreaking" in the title is overstatement.
Last edited:
Most outdoor people I've known over many years have known this, and the reasons for it, even the ones who choose to wear the synthetics know it but take the view that the pong is worth it for the advantages. I take your first point on board and agree fully, it's the research that tells us absolutely nothing that wasn't already known which gets me shaking my head in bewilderment..........
Before shaking fists at the 'Groundbreaking' discovery maybe have a look at the original published paper.
BBC are reporting on the research and are probably simplifying/summarising the most relevant parts of the research. There may be a lot of information in the original research omitted from this article.
Also an awful lot of break throughs are made through 'blue sky' research or when researching something that people already assume they know the answer to (but it turns out it's something different).
As for the amount of funding needed, the costs are usually grossly overexaggereted, and as has been stated the costs are not so much to answer a particular question but more to help train the next set of scientists through PhD and Post Doc grants.
That all being said I also assumed that this was already known about, but at least we now have proof I guess.
BBC are reporting on the research and are probably simplifying/summarising the most relevant parts of the research. There may be a lot of information in the original research omitted from this article.
Also an awful lot of break throughs are made through 'blue sky' research or when researching something that people already assume they know the answer to (but it turns out it's something different).
As for the amount of funding needed, the costs are usually grossly overexaggereted, and as has been stated the costs are not so much to answer a particular question but more to help train the next set of scientists through PhD and Post Doc grants.
That all being said I also assumed that this was already known about, but at least we now have proof I guess.
Just when we should invest in research, the only hope for a real future for this country.
That's a good point, I do realise we have to invest in the future; it just struck me as a little pointless in this particular case.
