Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

New study suggests there is no autism epidemi

davidpneff
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 11:28:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sorry anti-vaxxers:

Over the past 20 years, the rates of autism spectrum disorder have been steadily climbing in developing countries, with a reported 30 percent increase in the US in just two years. But scientists have struggled to work out what's behind this epidemic, and now a new study suggests that we may have been looking in the wrong places. In fact, the epidemic might not exist at all.

A study of more than one million children in Sweden has shown that, over the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002, the number of autism spectrum disorder diagnoses increased significantly, but the number of patients who actually displayed symptoms remained stable.

http://www.sciencealert.com...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 7:00:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Any time there appears to be an increase in a population I have learned to look at the reporting procedures and criteria, and that is often a factor. Even so in this case.

I never did buy into the vaccination explanation. It was suspect right from the beginning, I have not been 100% convinced, but enough that I believe it is a non issue.

In my youth there were always children who were not in step with those around them.
Still, it seems to be a much larger problem than we are led to believe.

In the 70s I was taking childhood development classes, and exceptional children classes (high and low end of development, and aberrations), and I can recall many things, but no mention of autism. If it was ever mentioned, it was very minor.
It was a non issue.
We are told it now affects about 1 in 70 children. Yes, most of those are very minor. Still, this is a huge number.

I saw an interesting graph that showed the rate of ASD compared to organic food sales, with a nearly one to one correlation. Correlation is not causation.

It is easy to accept that there is no epidemic.
it would be more reassuring if we have some data prior to 1980, which I have never been able to find.
That is troubling, for this issue, but also for the issues that someone will be saying 'I wish we had data for the early 2000s'.

Are we finding out about it, or causing it?
I see no convincing evidence either way, and science is no help on this issue.
It helps in treatment, but the cause and effect issue remains elusive.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 7:52:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 11:28:52 PM, davidpneff wrote:
Sorry anti-vaxxers:

Over the past 20 years, the rates of autism spectrum disorder have been steadily climbing in developing countries, with a reported 30 percent increase in the US in just two years. But scientists have struggled to work out what's behind this epidemic, and now a new study suggests that we may have been looking in the wrong places. In fact, the epidemic might not exist at all.

A study of more than one million children in Sweden has shown that, over the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002, the number of autism spectrum disorder diagnoses increased significantly, but the number of patients who actually displayed symptoms remained stable.

http://www.sciencealert.com...

Science reporting is pretty terrible. What do they mean when they say, "But scientists have struggled to work out what's behind this epidemic"?

Anyway, we can identify presence of ASD with about 99.9% accuracy by analysing a person's genome alone (and this is before they take any vaccines). That should have been a clue to anti-vaxxers as well.
baddebater
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 8:16:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 11:28:52 PM, davidpneff wrote:
Sorry anti-vaxxers:

Over the past 20 years, the rates of autism spectrum disorder have been steadily climbing in developing countries, with a reported 30 percent increase in the US in just two years. But scientists have struggled to work out what's behind this epidemic, and now a new study suggests that we may have been looking in the wrong places. In fact, the epidemic might not exist at all.

A study of more than one million children in Sweden has shown that, over the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002, the number of autism spectrum disorder diagnoses increased significantly, but the number of patients who actually displayed symptoms remained stable.

http://www.sciencealert.com... : :

I can only imagine how much money those scientists have made to study subjects like autism or anything else in this world. There must have been good money in autism for awhile but now that it's known to most of the world, it's getting rather boring. On to something new my dear scientists.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 8:49:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 8:16:34 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/6/2015 11:28:52 PM, davidpneff wrote:
Sorry anti-vaxxers:

Over the past 20 years, the rates of autism spectrum disorder have been steadily climbing in developing countries, with a reported 30 percent increase in the US in just two years. But scientists have struggled to work out what's behind this epidemic, and now a new study suggests that we may have been looking in the wrong places. In fact, the epidemic might not exist at all.

A study of more than one million children in Sweden has shown that, over the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002, the number of autism spectrum disorder diagnoses increased significantly, but the number of patients who actually displayed symptoms remained stable.

http://www.sciencealert.com... : :

I can only imagine how much money those scientists have made to study subjects like autism or anything else in this world. There must have been good money in autism for awhile but now that it's known to most of the world, it's getting rather boring. On to something new my dear scientists.

Just to correct your implicit misconception a bit, there's a lot of grant money in autism right now because there is still a lot we dont' know about it and a lot of progress has been made. We ourselves don't make extra money just because there's more grant money involved. We don't get paid any of that money. Our salaries stay the same.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 9:03:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 8:49:18 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 8:16:34 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/6/2015 11:28:52 PM, davidpneff wrote:
Sorry anti-vaxxers:

Over the past 20 years, the rates of autism spectrum disorder have been steadily climbing in developing countries, with a reported 30 percent increase in the US in just two years. But scientists have struggled to work out what's behind this epidemic, and now a new study suggests that we may have been looking in the wrong places. In fact, the epidemic might not exist at all.

A study of more than one million children in Sweden has shown that, over the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002, the number of autism spectrum disorder diagnoses increased significantly, but the number of patients who actually displayed symptoms remained stable.

http://www.sciencealert.com... : :

I can only imagine how much money those scientists have made to study subjects like autism or anything else in this world. There must have been good money in autism for awhile but now that it's known to most of the world, it's getting rather boring. On to something new my dear scientists.

Just to correct your implicit misconception a bit, there's a lot of grant money in autism right now because there is still a lot we dont' know about it and a lot of progress has been made. We ourselves don't make extra money just because there's more grant money involved. We don't get paid any of that money. Our salaries stay the same.

Would it be fair to say, no grants, no pay?
Where does your paymaster get their money to pay you?
Who does get the grant money?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 9:08:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 9:03:38 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/7/2015 8:49:18 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 8:16:34 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/6/2015 11:28:52 PM, davidpneff wrote:
Sorry anti-vaxxers:

Over the past 20 years, the rates of autism spectrum disorder have been steadily climbing in developing countries, with a reported 30 percent increase in the US in just two years. But scientists have struggled to work out what's behind this epidemic, and now a new study suggests that we may have been looking in the wrong places. In fact, the epidemic might not exist at all.

A study of more than one million children in Sweden has shown that, over the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002, the number of autism spectrum disorder diagnoses increased significantly, but the number of patients who actually displayed symptoms remained stable.

http://www.sciencealert.com... : :

I can only imagine how much money those scientists have made to study subjects like autism or anything else in this world. There must have been good money in autism for awhile but now that it's known to most of the world, it's getting rather boring. On to something new my dear scientists.

Just to correct your implicit misconception a bit, there's a lot of grant money in autism right now because there is still a lot we dont' know about it and a lot of progress has been made. We ourselves don't make extra money just because there's more grant money involved. We don't get paid any of that money. Our salaries stay the same.

Would it be fair to say, no grants, no pay?

No, not in my country anyway. Our pay as scientists do not come from grants. If there's a lack of grant money for your question of interest, you either do you best to convince granting agencies that it is worth funding, or you re-evaluate your reasons for believing it is worth funding, of you apply your skills to a new topic.

Where does your paymaster get their money to pay you?

My paymaster? I'm paid by my university and by the government.

Who does get the grant money?

It's a very similar process to applying for scholarships, except it is your research proposal that is mainly being evaluated rather than you as a researcher, though your research team is also evaluated for their ability to carry out the work.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 9:21:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 9:08:20 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:03:38 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/7/2015 8:49:18 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 8:16:34 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/6/2015 11:28:52 PM, davidpneff wrote:
Sorry anti-vaxxers:

Over the past 20 years, the rates of autism spectrum disorder have been steadily climbing in developing countries, with a reported 30 percent increase in the US in just two years. But scientists have struggled to work out what's behind this epidemic, and now a new study suggests that we may have been looking in the wrong places. In fact, the epidemic might not exist at all.

A study of more than one million children in Sweden has shown that, over the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002, the number of autism spectrum disorder diagnoses increased significantly, but the number of patients who actually displayed symptoms remained stable.

http://www.sciencealert.com... : :

I can only imagine how much money those scientists have made to study subjects like autism or anything else in this world. There must have been good money in autism for awhile but now that it's known to most of the world, it's getting rather boring. On to something new my dear scientists.

Just to correct your implicit misconception a bit, there's a lot of grant money in autism right now because there is still a lot we dont' know about it and a lot of progress has been made. We ourselves don't make extra money just because there's more grant money involved. We don't get paid any of that money. Our salaries stay the same.

Would it be fair to say, no grants, no pay?

No, not in my country anyway. Our pay as scientists do not come from grants. If there's a lack of grant money for your question of interest, you either do you best to convince granting agencies that it is worth funding, or you re-evaluate your reasons for believing it is worth funding, of you apply your skills to a new topic.

I am still confused.
Are you saying that if there is no grant money, the University will still pay you, to do no studies? The government will pay you to do no studies?

Where does your paymaster get their money to pay you?

My paymaster? I'm paid by my university and by the government.

Who does get the grant money?

It's a very similar process to applying for scholarships, except it is your research proposal that is mainly being evaluated rather than you as a researcher, though your research team is also evaluated for their ability to carry out the work.

So the researcher gets the money?
Isn't that you?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 9:26:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 9:21:15 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:08:20 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:03:38 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/7/2015 8:49:18 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 8:16:34 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/6/2015 11:28:52 PM, davidpneff wrote:
Sorry anti-vaxxers:

Over the past 20 years, the rates of autism spectrum disorder have been steadily climbing in developing countries, with a reported 30 percent increase in the US in just two years. But scientists have struggled to work out what's behind this epidemic, and now a new study suggests that we may have been looking in the wrong places. In fact, the epidemic might not exist at all.

A study of more than one million children in Sweden has shown that, over the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002, the number of autism spectrum disorder diagnoses increased significantly, but the number of patients who actually displayed symptoms remained stable.

http://www.sciencealert.com... : :

I can only imagine how much money those scientists have made to study subjects like autism or anything else in this world. There must have been good money in autism for awhile but now that it's known to most of the world, it's getting rather boring. On to something new my dear scientists.

Just to correct your implicit misconception a bit, there's a lot of grant money in autism right now because there is still a lot we dont' know about it and a lot of progress has been made. We ourselves don't make extra money just because there's more grant money involved. We don't get paid any of that money. Our salaries stay the same.

Would it be fair to say, no grants, no pay?

No, not in my country anyway. Our pay as scientists do not come from grants. If there's a lack of grant money for your question of interest, you either do you best to convince granting agencies that it is worth funding, or you re-evaluate your reasons for believing it is worth funding, of you apply your skills to a new topic.

I am still confused.
Are you saying that if there is no grant money, the University will still pay you, to do no studies? The government will pay you to do no studies?

If you have zero grant money, the university and government still pay you a personal salary. You don't just lose your job, but you don't have funding for students, research assistants, equipment, etc. Though in reality, at least where I am, you always have some baseline research funding. If you're having trouble finding grant money, it's time to make a change in your research proposal or your research.

It's not complicated, actually. Your salary and research funding are two separate things.


Where does your paymaster get their money to pay you?

My paymaster? I'm paid by my university and by the government.

Who does get the grant money?

It's a very similar process to applying for scholarships, except it is your research proposal that is mainly being evaluated rather than you as a researcher, though your research team is also evaluated for their ability to carry out the work.

So the researcher gets the money?
Isn't that you?

The research does get to allocate the money, but the researcher does get the money. There is a lot of oversight regarding how that money is spent (i.e. you need to provide proof that your money is going where you say it is, and you need to keep track of every dollar). If you paid yourself out of that grant money, you're likely to be caught, your grant will be revoked, your project will collapse, your reputation will be severely damaged, and your career is going to take a blow. Really not worth it.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 9:35:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 9:26:37 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:21:15 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:08:20 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:03:38 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/7/2015 8:49:18 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 8:16:34 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/6/2015 11:28:52 PM, davidpneff wrote:
Sorry anti-vaxxers:

Over the past 20 years, the rates of autism spectrum disorder have been steadily climbing in developing countries, with a reported 30 percent increase in the US in just two years. But scientists have struggled to work out what's behind this epidemic, and now a new study suggests that we may have been looking in the wrong places. In fact, the epidemic might not exist at all.

A study of more than one million children in Sweden has shown that, over the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002, the number of autism spectrum disorder diagnoses increased significantly, but the number of patients who actually displayed symptoms remained stable.

http://www.sciencealert.com... : :

I can only imagine how much money those scientists have made to study subjects like autism or anything else in this world. There must have been good money in autism for awhile but now that it's known to most of the world, it's getting rather boring. On to something new my dear scientists.

Just to correct your implicit misconception a bit, there's a lot of grant money in autism right now because there is still a lot we dont' know about it and a lot of progress has been made. We ourselves don't make extra money just because there's more grant money involved. We don't get paid any of that money. Our salaries stay the same.

Would it be fair to say, no grants, no pay?

No, not in my country anyway. Our pay as scientists do not come from grants. If there's a lack of grant money for your question of interest, you either do you best to convince granting agencies that it is worth funding, or you re-evaluate your reasons for believing it is worth funding, of you apply your skills to a new topic.

I am still confused.
Are you saying that if there is no grant money, the University will still pay you, to do no studies? The government will pay you to do no studies?

If you have zero grant money, the university and government still pay you a personal salary. You don't just lose your job, but you don't have funding for students, research assistants, equipment, etc. Though in reality, at least where I am, you always have some baseline research funding. If you're having trouble finding grant money, it's time to make a change in your research proposal or your research.

It's not complicated, actually. Your salary and research funding are two separate things.

You imply what seems to me to be true.
If there is no grant money, there will be fewer employers.
People will lose their jobs.
I understand what you say about there being no direct link between a specific grant and your pay, still, no grants and some employees will be gone, and it seems to me you have no guarantee that you will not be one of the ones looking for a job.
Your job and your pay depends on grants, in a general sense.
"Would it be fair to say, no grants, no pay?"
No grants and someone will not get paid.


Where does your paymaster get their money to pay you?

My paymaster? I'm paid by my university and by the government.

Who does get the grant money?

It's a very similar process to applying for scholarships, except it is your research proposal that is mainly being evaluated rather than you as a researcher, though your research team is also evaluated for their ability to carry out the work.

So the researcher gets the money?
Isn't that you?

The research does get to allocate the money, but the researcher does get the money. There is a lot of oversight regarding how that money is spent (i.e. you need to provide proof that your money is going where you say it is, and you need to keep track of every dollar). If you paid yourself out of that grant money, you're likely to be caught, your grant will be revoked, your project will collapse, your reputation will be severely damaged, and your career is going to take a blow. Really not worth it.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 9:45:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 9:35:34 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:26:37 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:21:15 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:08:20 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:03:38 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/7/2015 8:49:18 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 8:16:34 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/6/2015 11:28:52 PM, davidpneff wrote:
Sorry anti-vaxxers:

Over the past 20 years, the rates of autism spectrum disorder have been steadily climbing in developing countries, with a reported 30 percent increase in the US in just two years. But scientists have struggled to work out what's behind this epidemic, and now a new study suggests that we may have been looking in the wrong places. In fact, the epidemic might not exist at all.

A study of more than one million children in Sweden has shown that, over the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002, the number of autism spectrum disorder diagnoses increased significantly, but the number of patients who actually displayed symptoms remained stable.

http://www.sciencealert.com... : :

I can only imagine how much money those scientists have made to study subjects like autism or anything else in this world. There must have been good money in autism for awhile but now that it's known to most of the world, it's getting rather boring. On to something new my dear scientists.

Just to correct your implicit misconception a bit, there's a lot of grant money in autism right now because there is still a lot we dont' know about it and a lot of progress has been made. We ourselves don't make extra money just because there's more grant money involved. We don't get paid any of that money. Our salaries stay the same.

Would it be fair to say, no grants, no pay?

No, not in my country anyway. Our pay as scientists do not come from grants. If there's a lack of grant money for your question of interest, you either do you best to convince granting agencies that it is worth funding, or you re-evaluate your reasons for believing it is worth funding, of you apply your skills to a new topic.

I am still confused.
Are you saying that if there is no grant money, the University will still pay you, to do no studies? The government will pay you to do no studies?

If you have zero grant money, the university and government still pay you a personal salary. You don't just lose your job, but you don't have funding for students, research assistants, equipment, etc. Though in reality, at least where I am, you always have some baseline research funding. If you're having trouble finding grant money, it's time to make a change in your research proposal or your research.

It's not complicated, actually. Your salary and research funding are two separate things.

You imply what seems to me to be true.
If there is no grant money, there will be fewer employers.
People will lose their jobs.
I understand what you say about there being no direct link between a specific grant and your pay, still, no grants and some employees will be gone, and it seems to me you have no guarantee that you will not be one of the ones looking for a job.
Your job and your pay depends on grants, in a general sense.
"Would it be fair to say, no grants, no pay?"
No grants and someone will not get paid.

I think I see where your misunderstanding is. When you are applying for grants as a scientist, you already have a job. The scientist IS the employer, in this case. We hire graduate students and research assistants. There may be less positions for them in their field if granting money decreases or is moved to other areas of science. But the employment of the actual scientist seeking grant money is not threatened by not getting a grant.

There are a few exceptions (myself being an exception), but this is the case for the vast majority.

It is not correct to say "no grants, no pay" when talking about the actual scientists involved, which has been my interpretation of this discussion. "No grants, and less hiring of students" would be much more accurate.

So your original point that scientists are making money by studying certain topics is incorrect. If you want to switch to saying that there will be less graduate students and research assistants studying certain topics if granting money was reduced for that topic, that is true, but also not what we were talking about originally.



Where does your paymaster get their money to pay you?

My paymaster? I'm paid by my university and by the government.

Who does get the grant money?

It's a very similar process to applying for scholarships, except it is your research proposal that is mainly being evaluated rather than you as a researcher, though your research team is also evaluated for their ability to carry out the work.

So the researcher gets the money?
Isn't that you?

The research does get to allocate the money, but the researcher does get the money. There is a lot of oversight regarding how that money is spent (i.e. you need to provide proof that your money is going where you say it is, and you need to keep track of every dollar). If you paid yourself out of that grant money, you're likely to be caught, your grant will be revoked, your project will collapse, your reputation will be severely damaged, and your career is going to take a blow. Really not worth it.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 1:36:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 9:45:46 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:35:34 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:26:37 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:21:15 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:08:20 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 9:03:38 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/7/2015 8:49:18 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 5/7/2015 8:16:34 AM, baddebater wrote:
At 5/6/2015 11:28:52 PM, davidpneff wrote:
Sorry anti-vaxxers:

Over the past 20 years, the rates of autism spectrum disorder have been steadily climbing in developing countries, with a reported 30 percent increase in the US in just two years. But scientists have struggled to work out what's behind this epidemic, and now a new study suggests that we may have been looking in the wrong places. In fact, the epidemic might not exist at all.

A study of more than one million children in Sweden has shown that, over the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002, the number of autism spectrum disorder diagnoses increased significantly, but the number of patients who actually displayed symptoms remained stable.

http://www.sciencealert.com... : :

I can only imagine how much money those scientists have made to study subjects like autism or anything else in this world. There must have been good money in autism for awhile but now that it's known to most of the world, it's getting rather boring. On to something new my dear scientists.

Just to correct your implicit misconception a bit, there's a lot of grant money in autism right now because there is still a lot we dont' know about it and a lot of progress has been made. We ourselves don't make extra money just because there's more grant money involved. We don't get paid any of that money. Our salaries stay the same.

Would it be fair to say, no grants, no pay?

No, not in my country anyway. Our pay as scientists do not come from grants. If there's a lack of grant money for your question of interest, you either do you best to convince granting agencies that it is worth funding, or you re-evaluate your reasons for believing it is worth funding, of you apply your skills to a new topic.

I am still confused.
Are you saying that if there is no grant money, the University will still pay you, to do no studies? The government will pay you to do no studies?

If you have zero grant money, the university and government still pay you a personal salary. You don't just lose your job, but you don't have funding for students, research assistants, equipment, etc. Though in reality, at least where I am, you always have some baseline research funding. If you're having trouble finding grant money, it's time to make a change in your research proposal or your research.

It's not complicated, actually. Your salary and research funding are two separate things.

You imply what seems to me to be true.
If there is no grant money, there will be fewer employers.
People will lose their jobs.
I understand what you say about there being no direct link between a specific grant and your pay, still, no grants and some employees will be gone, and it seems to me you have no guarantee that you will not be one of the ones looking for a job.
Your job and your pay depends on grants, in a general sense.
"Would it be fair to say, no grants, no pay?"
No grants and someone will not get paid.

I think I see where your misunderstanding is. When you are applying for grants as a scientist, you already have a job. The scientist IS the employer, in this case. We hire graduate students and research assistants. There may be less positions for them in their field if granting money decreases or is moved to other areas of science. But the employment of the actual scientist seeking grant money is not threatened by not getting a grant.

There are a few exceptions (myself being an exception), but this is the case for the vast majority.

It is not correct to say "no grants, no pay" when talking about the actual scientists involved, which has been my interpretation of this discussion. "No grants, and less hiring of students" would be much more accurate.

So your original point that scientists are making money by studying certain topics is incorrect. If you want to switch to saying that there will be less graduate students and research assistants studying certain topics if granting money was reduced for that topic, that is true, but also not what we were talking about originally.



Where does your paymaster get their money to pay you?

My paymaster? I'm paid by my university and by the government.

Who does get the grant money?

It's a very similar process to applying for scholarships, except it is your research proposal that is mainly being evaluated rather than you as a researcher, though your research team is also evaluated for their ability to carry out the work.

So the researcher gets the money?
Isn't that you?

The research does get to allocate the money, but the researcher does get the money. There is a lot of oversight regarding how that money is spent (i.e. you need to provide proof that your money is going where you say it is, and you need to keep track of every dollar). If you paid yourself out of that grant money, you're likely to be caught, your grant will be revoked, your project will collapse, your reputation will be severely damaged, and your career is going to take a blow. Really not worth it.

That clears things up.
Thanks