This is a rant.

I used to be really optimistic and interested in scientific news. But I started noticing a pattern, and I can't get it out of my head. Nearly every experiment or study in the news seems to end inconclusively...like, every study says more study is needed despite whatever it is they got money to study. Why can't good experiments be designed and conducted that actually answer a meaningful question without weasel words and hand waving? Or in other words, if the study cannot make a meaningful conclusion that leads to insight and action instead of just data, design a better study.

Here's a more specific example. I was reading about studies related to life on Mars. All of the experiments were designed to conclude with results that could not actually answer whether life exists on Mars. They would instead conclude that there's maybe water somewhere, or there are maybe biochemical signatures, or there are signs of an ancient ocean somewhere. But here's the thing: it doesn't matter if there are hints here or there that maybe some data could be speculatively interpreted as signs of life. Design a rover with a microscope that zooms into some damn rocks. Any other findings from any other study are a waste of time and money, because despite how much evidence that chemical XYZ exists and cannot possibly have come from non-life, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn other than "We gathered data, here's what the data we gathered looks like. It suggests something. We need more studies to gather more data that will suggest more studies to gather more data. Thanks, bye."

I feel that the abundance of "meta-analyses" as a modern practice really underscores how little value most studies individually bring to the table. If most studies are so independently worthless that the scientific field finds they have to glue together lots of them to make a conclusion, it's a sign that the field is wasting tons of time and resources that should be better spent on answering the hard questions for real by designing rigorous experiments and analyses with results that are not speculative.

I'll give another example. There are studies showing vitamin XYZ can help maybe prevent disease ABC. Well, does it or does it not, and exactly why, and how much is needed? What's the point at the end of the study if you still don't know? Why should a journal publish your paper if you can't claim anything as a result of your work? And yet, of course, they do. And I know the answer is so they can get more funding. But I doubt the group who originally funded it wanted the outcome to be "we didn't answer the question and need to study more".

It feels like Nobel prizes are handed out to the rare few who actually design a study or experiment that conclusively answers a meaningful question because it's big enough to actually do that. But shouldn't this kind of science be the norm, not the exception? Like, can we have more groups collaborating to do big motivating and meaningful things like imaging a black hole as their goal? Why are these kinds of collaborations so rare?

Ok, rant over. Carry on.