yes the problem is politics , or what you might call institutionalized group psychology of those with access to spending tax dollars, and the legislators they need to &#x27;persuade&#x27; to get the money spent.<p>science is not an art , it is generally an institutionally funded social behavior. the art of science is such that a lot of shitty ass sciece research with poorly constructed hypothesis and protocol gets funded............<p>can we do a better job? maybe. but the answer lies in better policy analysts and politicians, not in better &#x27;scientists&#x27;.<p>on heuristic for helping pinpoint bad and poorly constructed research is to look for where the most &#x27;growth&#x27; in research has occured the quickest; and by that-----i mean look for the research &#x27;bubbles&#x27;.<p>why? as with art in general, and clothign and every sphere of human behavior-----that which gets popular very quickly is usually by nature fleeting and without the most substance, like fast growing weeds. that which grows slowly and withstands the test of time usually resembles an oak in quality.<p>that does not mean that fast growth is always undesireable. you want fast growth in areas where there is great potential and low hanging fruit.<p>it is good that bubbles occur SOMETIMES. BUT NOT ALWAYS. some bubbles are poorly advised. you must crack a few eggs to make an ommelet but sometimes you are just breaking eggs inside the carton without ever making breakfast.<p>but regardless of whether or not a bubble is good or bad, all bubbles still must pop at some point to let the overgrowth and wasteful growth be cleared. all forests must eventually have a forest fire.<p>the longer fire and destruction is suppressed beyond a certain point........the greater the amount of destruction is going to be when it finally comes.<p>and in general, this is why our current economic bubble is so worrisome