As a medical professional and someone trained in the scientific method I actually find this concept rather distressing and have considered it before.

Like say we have X issue and there are grants to do scientific studies on it but 99% of the money is there to do studies proving X angle and only 1% of the money is there to just to consider Y angle, you’re going to end up with an information bias. I don’t want to get into controversies but I’ve seen this sort of thing happen within other scientific fields and it concerns me greatly. To clarify, I am 100% believing of anthropogenic climate change phenomenon, BUT there is now a huge amount of money there specifically to study how almost anything is caused by climate change and very little about things that are not and I have a friend who did a type of geography postgrad who pointed out that some of them are basically just mindlessly choosing such funding for research trying to find stuff that might’ve been affected by it as its always there and other areas aren’t to get money for their research and postgrad studying. I won’t insult them by saying that they’re deliberately fudging data (I would never know though) but when you overwhelmingly fund for one particular type of evidence you’re only really going to have that type of evidence if that makes sense.

Clarifying again. I Do believe in fairies climate change I do I do I do. I just query the way a lot of the funding is managed and how it’s affecting science.