Ok, but the trend now is that there is a battle to get funded, and you get funded only if you do certain research, while other, also important research is struggling. So it might help in some cases (research that is not lucrative, but important in the eyes of the public), but not in others... like coronavirus research, 2 years ago. I wouldn't have given it any importance, just another RNA strand. While other research would get overfunded, if the public was consulted.
That's why research needs public funding and shouldn't rely on companies to directly fund.
However all money is useful, so why not allow companies to donate directly? And that small step made companies steer the research direction and censor results they don't want.
So research into free and easy public available solutions are neglected and more expensive medicine can get you a lucrative grand.
On top of that you create a culture were people attack other employees of the university, as this way of working generates income and provides job security.
Having public research would help against the biased or censored results.
With all systems, someone will find a way to exploit it. The system can be made in a manner to prevent this from happening, usually openness is a first step.
First they said that football supporters were driven to the demonstration place and that is the reason it escalated, but we just see police dispersing normal peaceful people, old people, hitting old ladies with a stoma, or with a dog. And it's hard, that the police is not your friend anymore in NL (it was). Now, normally, against young people, sure. But these are older people that need to be handled more carefully (and here, with the BLM police did a step back, but here they just hit that old lady full force with the watergun)
If you look what these people stand for, everyone protesting, it's usually generic and sounds more like an ideology then it's back by real evidence. Defending freedom, against 5G and forced inoculations are things that should be easily proven if based on fact. Usually the protestors are ill informed, but agree with the generic concept which probably every Dutch person would if true. I feel like I'm a quite open person for new views, but until now all groups protesting have weak arguments usually based on personal experience or hearsay, not empirical evidence.
The Netherlands has laws and these rules apply to everyone. If others have to request permission these protestors should do that to. Police only see people that don't comply, they don't discriminate based on age or having a pet.
Also sounds like they were treated nicely until hooligans began making a ruckus.
I was thought people are people. You can dislike a person but not a group of people just bases on some trivial attribute like looks or preferences, cause that's racism. Not to mention the stigma on discrimination, nobody is the same. People demonstrating appear to fight racism by doing the opposite. People fighting for freedom by breaking the law making it so that new laws need to be made to force them to listen. Mix these protestors with motivated ideological poorly informed online mobs and you have the things you see today.
I beg to differ, I've read the study a few years ago. And nobody wants to peer review it because they never will get funded again.
You should never stop people that are going to prove you are right. Don't understand why they don't fund research, these believes can be very harmful if false but are also harmful if proven to be true.
