I just stumbled across my main subconscious bias when I say things are under-funded. I just read another study on mice with an n=6 in each group. Now, having worked with mice (and the ethical review committee) I am super-familiar with an n = 6 or n = 8 protocols. It's very often what one technician can handle. And the review committees tend to say 'yes' when we tick the box 'is this the minimum number of mice needed to see useful results?'. If I want to get a grant refused, I can ask for an n = 6 on a pilot study and an n = 14 on the actual study. And they'll be like "oh, can you get 'p' with half the money?". "Sure, yeah, if I get lucky and do multiple experiments at the same time". Drives me bonkers. When I see an n = 6, I immediately assume that we've fallen for p-hacking. I've written journals about their peer-review. I want pilot studies, I want predicted Beta, I want studies done with reasonable power. I want a post-hoc Beta. Sure, this means that you'll need multiple technicians on a project. It means that you'll need multiple mouse breeds. But we have these problems because things are fundamentally underfunded and we don't have high standards for what we consider results. That's why I think things are underfunded. We don't have enough science being done, and it's a function of money and standards. Meanwhile, people are suffering and I'm getting cab rides from people with Masters degrees.