Reminds me of the lipid hypothesis

You know, the thing about lipids being linked to cardiovascular disease…

Was the research interesting? Definitely.

Was the research innovative? Again, definitely.

Was the research useful? Absolutely, as it shifted decades of nutrition recommendations.

Was the research empirically derived? At the time, yes. It was perceived to be.

Is your research vertically integrated? Yes, it pushed buttons and boundaries. It changed the course of history.

In the end, was the research rubbish? Absolutely. Or partially absolutely.

These questions for me seems more to be inline with making popular research. Stuff that will be noticed by more people. Stuff that creates conflict, and make people talk about it. Does this make it good or great research? Hell no.

I believe good, or even great, research could be boring, it might not be interesting, innovative and only partially useful. The data could be better, but sometimes you have to work with what you’ve got. It might not push any boundaries as it’s limited to a single domain.

In the end, it might not even prove what you set out to prove, but it’s sound. Sound according to the scientific methods and processes. Delivering solid proof and results. That in my mind is great research; not “rockstar” research.