As soon as I see a news report that begins "According to a recent study," I begin to vacillate between stifled yawns and clenched fists. That's because nearly all of reported studies have one or more flaws: Their sample size is too small or biased, they may use self-reported data ("most respondents felt they were overworked and underpaid, therefore they are"), they draw simplistic, premature and misleading correlations ("roos-ters crow at dawn, the sun rises, therefore roosters cause the sun to rise"), and they leap to unsupportable, albeit tentative, conclusions. Too often, studies are designed primarily to attract attention.

The last point is key. Nearly every one of the growing volume of half-baked studies--whether in the so-called softer sciences of economics or sociology, or the harder sciences of medicine or chemistry--concludes with the admonition that more study of the topic is needed before real conclusions can be drawn. And, of course, "We need to do more study" really means, "Send us more funding."

The "send money" phenomenon extends to the quality of results. If an organization has done a thorough job, it believes it should be rewarded with a bigger budget; if it has done a mediocre job, it blames the disappointing result on insufficient funding. Either way, the organization trolls for more money.

How did this situation develop? I've done a lot of reading on the history of science and engineering in the 19th and 20th centuries, and I have a theory.

Up until World War II, nearly all R&D was funded directly by individual investigators or their personal benefactors, or by companies and universities using their own money. Government-sponsored projects and grants from foundations didn't play a large role at all.

But that situation changed dramatically with the projects that originated during the Second World War and the Cold War (the Manhattan Project, radar, synthetic rubber, to name a few). Government and foundation grants to companies and universities became a major source of funding, and the entire directed-research and grant-proposal establishment came into being.

If you are seeking such grants, you need publicity and attention--and you need even more publicity and attention to get additional grants and renewals. The process of initiating R&D and obtaining funding becomes a very public contest.

In earlier times, investigators didn't publicize their efforts or results until they were sure of them--and even then, they often kept their developments quiet, for various reasons.

Today, however, preannouncements and preliminary publicizing are critical to getting both initial and follow-up funding for projects.

Keep those driving factors in mind when you see yet another new story that begins, "According to a recent study . . . "

Very often, it's all about attention and the money spigot.