Scientists admit to researching the obvious because it's easy.

Berkeley, California- In an open letter to the public at large to be published in this months issue of

Popular Science, a inter disciplinary group of scientists from the University of California-Berkeley have released a hidden side of science that is sure to rock the nations science community to it's core.

The letter releases new insights into the world of the research scientist as the Berkeley post grads all admit that science stopped attempting to come up with new information around 1963 and since then the chief focus of the scientific community has been to ensure the in flow of life sustaining grants by claiming successful results to studies that report on the obvious.

The head of the Life Sciences division at Berkeley, Dr. Liam Neasen explained the report in an interview with BSP. “It's not that scientists don't want to feel the joy of discovery...we really do. The problem is that researching new topics doesn't guarantee success. It's like in middle school science. If you are repeating an experiment that has a known result you can be assured of success and the approval of the teachers: only in this case the teachers are rich people and the “A's” are grants.

Neasen cited recent peer reviewed articles that discovered such stunning truths as

“Links found between fast food consumption and obesity”-published in the June 2008 issue of The National Dietary review.

“Teenagers found to have increased hormone levels”- published in the spring edition of Life Sciences Quarterly

and

“Menstruation rates found to be higher in women” -published in the Journal of Reproductive Health,

The head of the National Science foundation said in a response to the admission from the scientific community “ We at the NSF know nothing about these supposedly obvious studies. As a Scientist it is anathema to our purpose to take anything for granted. I am still unsure about many “obvious” scientific truths. Evolution, Gravity and Heliocentricity all leave me highly suspect and when I was appointed by President Bush, that was exactly the type of skepticism he asked me to bring to bear on the nations scientific community.”

Defending the group out of Berkeley, Monsanto (a major contributor to food science research) likened the backing of a scientific study to the backing of a political candidate “You don't put money towards the campaign of a political candidate if you don't KNOW that they are going to win. Why would you put money towards a study that might not turn out as you hoped. Scientific exploration can be messy and unpredictable, while studying things which have already been discovered and are easily visible as fact ensures a positive result.” Their statements were echoed by many other popular reseacrh organizations and think tanks.

A research assistant out of Occidental College said on condition of anonymity “Look discovery doesn't put food in my mouth or finish paying off this PhD I'm working on. Give me grant money and lots of it. Our world is complex enough already without us having to go out and “find out new stuff” every three days. Please, that kind of work is enough to give the impression that being a Doctoral level researcher is hard, and if I didn't work hard to get where I'm at, I'm not going to start now.”