Why do scientists carry out studies and research for such things?

Research and study are a matter of quenching the thirst of curiosity. I agree on you that some 'studies' or 'research' hardly live up to the name but the person who conducted or published it thought that it might be a good idea to share those findings to the public, though how much deep and much sense it cause. As said, people this publish this stuff to keep people informed. for you and me, this might be not worth of a second reading but there are people who still don't know these things and wish to learn. Knowledge, even with technology, is not properly disseminated to the masses. I am one of those who are lucky enough to learn something everyday, whether or not I have the situation to apply it. Research and studies, like knowledge, have no immediate effect unless a certain situation presents itself. We don't know when we have to apply what we learned but just learned. In an unforeseeable time, we might find it useful though we thought of it as something trivial or garbage. For the meantime, I stock up to any knowledge that I can get. I might prove useful for me or for people who need it. Besides, who said that research needs to be so technical and groundbreaking?

You are so right. My boyfriend works with researchers and he tells me how these people waste money just in failed experiments only to reveal at the end of the day that they felt like they did nothing. Yet this game continues. According to him, one scientist at his workplace makes $2000 a day just in these stupid researches. I check several studies online and sometimes they make me shocked. One that made me feel like tearing my hair was on love and relationships of women living in some small island. What are we going to do with that? I also noticed that in dermatology, researchers love studying whether a cream or makeup product causes a person to go tan! They should be learning the side effects that it gives to skin instead. People need to be aware of that more. I also saw lots of research done on people who get bullied. But actually, we need to know the other side of the story and that is, why people turn into bullies and what can be done to prevent one from becoming this in the future. I actually have the feeling that researchers like getting away by going for easier topics. They are not interested in trying the difficult one because they are afraid that such thing will prove that they are dumber. Studying a lot does not really make one completely honest and ethical.

The thing is that this research is grunt work research, it is difficult to do because it is assumed by everyone without any factual proof. The chocolate study, studies actually there have been a few, has had direct effect on peoples lives. The existence of serotonin in chocolate, which is also available in the human body, gives the illusion of happiness and has been shown to help with depression. These studies allow the base component to be studied and discovered which can be isolated and used as a compound in treatments. This is the boring idea, the fun one would be that it is someone who loves chocolate and wanted to find a valid reason to eat it. Whenever I find one of these odd research studies, I remember my teacher, who would always answer us when we complained about having to prove things that were obvious - he would remind us that Newton proved the existence of gravity because of an apple, most of his contemporaries may have thought this to be unnecessary because things fall because they are above the ground level, why spend years trying to find a way to prove it. Who knows what some of these research papers may eventually lead to. Though there are studies, that you have to wonder why they did them.

I often hear of the so called researches that cost goodness knows how much that only come up with the obvious. Some findings make me wonder who would want to know in the first place. They mentioned one on the radio not too long ago that researched how many people carry backpacks...I mean, really?...Who cares? Sorry I don’t recall the statistics, for some reason I lost interest...

Why not? i am a chocolate lover and i would love to know how chocolate affects me or the environment... i have seen episodes of it in Discovery Channel that chocolates do make us happy,it is worth knowing such because i love to eat chocolates..and for on other stuff you mentioned why not? i mean those are fun stuff scientists can discover not just serious stuff like cure to medicine and the like.. it means it is also fun being a scientists.

I think that's why it is called re-search. It is just bringing out proof that a conventional wisdom or something logical is true. It is just a verification or confirmation. Maybe, this data can be unnecessary but it has a complete ground to be considered as research. It is just like putting science or scientific explanation to conventional wisdom already. Also, some of this researches may help understanding psychological nature of man like the research that you mention about skin tone and texture. Beauty is skin deep and generally those with good skin texture is more likely to be attractive than rough skin. But since beauty is subjective, some might say that they like those with rough skin better than those with smooth skin. So they made a study that most likely people will like smooth versus the rough skin. They made the case that most people do so it can be considered as research even though you as the reader quite know that you like smooth skin rather than rough. Maybe because you are already aware of the knowledge which seems make the research puzzling still for you. Anyway, research is research, but those research that are not that interesting will die out soon and those groundbreaking research will still get the best attention there is. So really there is nothing to worry about such kind of research. At least reading them made you puzzled.

Research in the name of science and medicine is a joke. They can never reach any satisfactory conclusions about anything important because then they would be out of a job. Look at the hundreds of organizations asking for money for cancer research. I'm 58 and I can remember this happening for many decades. Where is all that money going? Why is cancer still so prevalent?

For me they don't have it's origin if they don't do that way the scientists is the way of nothing to them.

i completely agree with you! some of the things they do research in is a complete and utter joke! for example, all these beauty products on the market! say for exmple, garnier summer sun body lotion.. and then it says tested and approved on 8 out of 10 woman, and in a study of 120, 92% said they would recommend to a friend etc etc etc.. why? why would they put all that effort in?! if people want to use the product they will use it. they'll probably buy it based on the packaging, the price, if they like garnier products, the smell.. these companies don't need to go into all this research detail! especially when people who buy it can just be like, offered a free gift to do a review!! people would be more inclined to buy something based on a personal review than a statistic! and the money those beauty companies spend on that, so i can only imagine the ridiculous amounts of money spent on actual "scientific research" with unlimited government funding! maybe they are just so swamped in their quest to cure cancer, that they do these things for fun on their tea break?

I find your comments very interesting, Friend Raj. But I will find these researches equally interesting. What I will look for are the things that they are NOT saying, the meanings in between the lines, the products being promoted, and the sales pitch that will follow. On skin tones, texture, and rough skin, what they are not saying is that there is a shift in the ideals of beauty and handsomeness. Among the MEN, the handsomeness of Rudolf Valentino, Carey Grant, and Elvis gave way to the ruggedness and macho-ness, if not outright ugliness - of a Jean Paul Belmondo, Ernest Borgnine, Charles Bronson, etc. in the late 1960s up to now. And how about Carol Burnett taking over from Elizabeth Taylor and Audrey Hepburn? With what you are saying now, it means that the ideas and ideals of beauty are shifting again. And you know what? More people have rough skin. So? Haven't you noticed that they are selling something for the rough-skinned uglies like me? "Only exception being those who don't like chocolates." Admittedly, one way of looking at it is your way, that the conclusion is so obvious to be almost silly. But how about the other possible conclusion that those who are NOT eating chocolates are unhappy (as opposed to happy chocolate eaters), stressed in mind and body (as opposed to relaxed chocolate eaters)? Bikini suits for certain body types? How about getting another kind of suit? Boys are physically faster than girls? Then how about buying some body shaping and body toning products for girls? They are selling something, Friend Raj. Wait for the sales pitch.