zlacker

A rejected proposal does not mean research does not happen. It means they were unable to get funding from DARPA. It does not necessarily mean they were unable to get funding from "somebody".

And yes we do have reason to believe this type of research caused the pandemic.

>>rhacke+(OP)
So, who did they get funding from, if not one of the only bodies in the world capable of funding this kind of work?

Oh, that’s right, they didn’t. You can tell that by looking at what they did work on next. Did you look?

Like it says in the article.

>>lolwut+l
We already know the NIH partially funded field survey work that appears to be very similar to this. It's pretty obvious to see that they continued applying elsewhere and may have been successful in getting the funding the requested. It just might be from several grants.

>>willup+w1
Right, did you look at the publication records of the academics involved?

When you beg for grants you have to publish to show you’re good for the next one.

This isn’t a mystery.

It’s literally right there, published for your subscriber access.

>>lolwut+s2
If you were doing research that led to a global pandemic that killed millions of people, would you then publish your results? I have a feeling that might not have the effect of showing you're "good for the next one."

Obviously the lack of evidence isn't proof that this happened, but I also don't think it's safe to say that it's proof it didn't.

>>rhacke+(OP)
As an academic, ain’t no way research from an unfunded grant proposal is happening…

The problem with your second statement is that we all of these posts and articles are attempts to throw evidence to support something you have already decided is true. More bad/non evidence does not make an argument and continually citing bad evidence that doesn’t prove your point reduces the credibility of the argument you are making.

>>avs733+bh
As a non-academic: huh?

The claim wasn't that the research was unfunded, just unfunded by DARPA.

To your second point, bad/non-evidence of essentially __everything__ is why the internet is the way it is today. You're saying "fake news is fake" which isn't really saying anything at all.

>>avs733+bh
Ok, as another academic: this happens all the time. People use funds from one grant to subsidize other research. I've heard a colleague refer to it "as using one project to pay the bills of another project."

It's all also a moot point in that just because the grant wasn't funded from DARPA doesn't mean it wasn't funded. And if it was funded, it doesn't mean we would know who funded it.

Not trying to be conspiratorial, just trying to point out the funding on this grant or lack thereof doesn't mean anything about it happening or not happening. It just means the researchers were interested in it happening.