dd--
You are taking things much too literally, and missing the big picture as a result. Think of my examples as representative of larger phenomena, not as discrete quanta.
"If you write a grant with a trivial aim, it won't get funded."
I will leave that one to the readers to determine for themselves. One person's "trivial" is another person's crusade.
"To fund any research you write your grants to support why selected condition needs further study, and what benefit it has to society."
Wrong. You look at something that interests you, and you see how you can fit it into the terms of reference of the granting agency. You consider your audience, and make your best effort to determine what is important to them, and then you tailor your efforts accordingly, while trying to maintain some integrity, if not in that application, then in the broader trajectory of your research, and that of any group or institution with which you are involved.
If you're doing anything differently, your probability of success is greatly diminished. And if you are successful with another technique, you may rest assured that others are vastly more successful with a better technique.
And therein lies the rub: very few studies are conclusive, one way or another. Some can be pretty good as far as they go, but part of what makes a study great is an express detailing of its limits of validity. As you well know, evidence for the consideration of issues can be found in peer-reviewed papers. There is ALWAYS evidence on both sides of the table--the quality of that evidence is determined by not only the intrinsic properties of the research, but by the purpose to which it is put, that is the proposition it is used to support or refute.
Consider localized prostate surgery. Without a doubt the associated paper details outcomes and measurement protocols. As a small example of the type of thing I'm trying to get across, do any of those outcomes permit the measurement and analysis of anxiety related to the prostate condition during the patient's life, as a dimension of the "advantage" of which you speak, and if so, how was it incorporated?
I have spoken to many who have had the surgery, and even in the face of research such as that from your institution, they would have the surgery again, for peace of mind. Is their quality of life better? From their point of view, yes. Is that an advantage? From their point of view, yes. Is it worth it? THAT is the type of question that public health policy should aim to address, and of which it does a damn poor job.
There are vested interests, both political and commercial, on both sides of that particular issue, upon which I need not elaborate as they are all-too-obvious. The policy game will be played by players from pharma, AMA, insurers, gov't actuaries, etc., and their considerations will be political.
To be of any actual use, in general, a research paper would have to be read by the individual patient who is considering undergoing a procedure or a treatment, or engaging or not engaging in a particular behavior, so that they can judge for them what is in their best interest at the individual level.
As far as "food inspections" go, the vast majority of food in the USA is NOT inspected, and many suppliers, although they make some effort at compliance, do not actually comply. As a result, there is a scale of warnings and timeframes for compliance in the event of non-compliance; however, the upshot is that the vast majority of food is not inspected, and the majority of facilities are currently not in full compliance.
Plus, I buy locally from small concerns and friends, and grow as much as I can, which is a lot. I do lots of canning and preserving. It is me who inspects the food. I even do things like buy whole milk directly from producers.
And yes, I did receive vaccinations--to what end, I'm still not sure. Were they worth it? Don't tell me that THAT is a settled issue. All you need to know that it isn't, is look around at how many people are opposed to vaccinating their kids. I know the arguments on both sides, and I am still not convinced that there was any net benefit of the vaccinations, either to society at large, or to myself as an individual. I do not get flu shots every year, but I certainly do get the flu most years, including this year. Know what? It provided a great excuse to sleep for several days straight. I'm back stronger and better than ever. Plus, I was able to read some Flannery O'Connor and some Exupery, things I wouldn't normally have the time to do.
"all are part of exploring a connection"
And there lies the essence. Exploration could be, and perhaps should be, intrinsically worthwhile, because nobody can predict what will result from probing the unknown. But the question is whether or not society should support such exploration, and if so, to what extent. By "extent" I mean not only "amount", but who should do the exploring, how that exploring should be done, what the roadmap is, how it affects other social concerns.
I haven't read this paper--however, in general, studies such as this one do not progress a field of inquiry in any particular direction, in the end. They end up being part of a great swirling mass of similar, and sometimes contradictory, studies. Then they get used on various sides of an agenda, the outcome of which is often pre-determined by political (which are now commercial) considerations.
While I do not disparage researchers in the trenches, the more interesting action as far as I'm concerned takes place on 2 distinct levels: 1) at the level of policy, especially as expressed through resource allocation, and 2) at the individual level for me personally. I've got to tell you that I honestly have a better life, as far as I'm concerned, than almost anybody I know. I feel good about my life and how it has shaped up, really good--and I know only a handful of others who could honestly say the same thing. And you know what? Some of them are fat! Sure things could be better both for me personally and especially at the social level, and that is why I continue working on things, and living life in general.
There is more to come, the future is exciting, and it will not involve any health care, public or private, to the extent that I can avoid it. Even if I have the misfortune of contracting a very serious illness, I do not know that I will seek "care" from the establishment. I am absolutely serious about this. I have watched many people in various stages of care for degenerative conditions, and more than one time have been told that if they knew in advance what it was going to be like, they wouldn't have done it. In fact, more have told me this than not.
I have the benefit of their experience, however. These are not easy decisions. Not seeking "care" for anything I have had in the past has also not been easy, especially when there are others urging you to actually seek that care. Things have worked out well so far. When I was 20, people kept saying "Oh yes, but wait until you're 30." When I was 20, they kept saying "Oh yes, but wait until you're 40."
And so it goes. I'm now mid-40's, and I'm still waiting, while everybody around me is deteriorating. It's more than just luck--the best luck I ever had was being born into and spending my childhood in a society that was enduring a sustained period of domestic peace. I know that is a huge piece of luck, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
Meanwhile, I can confidently COMPLETELY IGNORE this study, and others like it, as totally irrelevant to me as an individual. I might, however, have to deal with it on a policy level.