2

Nature magazine claims:

The financial crisis of the past few years has led to deep cuts in funding for scientific research by governments and charitable organizations, hiring freezes across university departments and academic institutes, and downsizing and restructuring in the life sciences industry. Despite signs of some reprieve, the global economy remains fragile, and the future of science funding continues to be at risk.

Is there some statistic or proof that expenditure on scientific research (not consumer based research e.g. smart phones) has been affected by the economy?

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
Apparently Im user2212428
  • 97
  • 5
  • According to the [FAQ](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions), Skeptics Stack Exchange.SE is for researching the evidence behind the claims you hear or read. This question doesn't appear to have any doubtful claims to investigate. Please edit it to reference a notable claim and flag for moderator attention to re-open (or get 5 re-open votes). – Oddthinking Feb 25 '14 at 00:13
  • @Oddthinking The claim is that the global economic downturn slowed scientific research, or reduced expenditure on scientific research. –  Feb 25 '14 at 00:16
  • 3
    @Articuno: The question appears to be a speculative claim produced by the OP, rather than a notable one worth investing our efforts into. – Oddthinking Feb 25 '14 at 00:21
  • 1
    It is notable: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23054169, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/22/business/la-fi-mh-scientific-progress-20131122, http://www.nature.com/ncb/journal/v14/n5/full/ncb2499.html. It's not the asker's responsibility to present evidence of notability, but ours to look for it before closing. –  Feb 25 '14 at 00:30
  • 2
    Not sure I agree as to whose responsibility it is to demonstrate notability, but regardless I think that Articuno has done so sufficiently well that the question should be reopened. – Publius Feb 25 '14 at 02:36

0 Answers0