From Dereck Johns
There is one very good reason for the funding of research into the obvious (Feedback, 13 May): to stop politicians from using the phrase, “There is no evidence that … “with the implication that this means, “There is no link between …”
These words have been used apropos poverty and ill-health, asthma and vehicle exhaust, dioxins, nuclear waste, hormone feeds, overhead power lines … and much more.
When a government pursues policies likely (or intended) to result in a large pool of unemployed labour, they consider it advantageous for there to be a lack of research into the “obvious” consequences.
