Suppose I were the head of an agency funding microbiological research, such as the National Institute of Health (NIH). In that case, I have a couple of research topics I’d be especially keen to fund over other projects. While ecology studies are neat and can lead to more outstanding scientific discoveries, I also do not think they are as helpful or exciting as studies that tackle problems head-on. Studies discovering the properties of a microbial species as being palliative to a particular disease would be something of utmost interest. I also think studies that aim to find causative evidence that goes against previous knowledge are also exciting, as those studies cover lots of unique ground that not many other studies occupy.

I think comparatively to ecology projects, projects focusing on causative, RCT-borne data stand to contribute more to society at large. Ecology studies are important for our understanding of microbial communities and the funding of these studies should not cease. However, I think when a decision has to be made between two projects, I would be much more likely to select a paper that is presenting something practical and groundbreaking.