'Pruning' NHS Research?

All clinical research costs money (directly but also in terms of providing support staff, such as doctors, nurses and administrators). It also generally has to recruit patients (who have to be cared for). As the UK's medical services start to emerge from the Covid19 pandemic, government says that efforts must be made to focus NHS resources on a small number of well-designed, clinical trials (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/may/30/medical-research-stalled-as-nhs-focuses-on-small-number-of-trials-experts-say). The move is well-intentioned. There have been claims that using varied experimental designs, has stopped data from studies being combined in meta-analyses. It has also been claimed that some research simply duplicates existing studies. This can be a problematic issue as the scientific method relies on the ability to replicate results. A number of NHS clinical trials were essentially 'frozen', when the pandemic was underway. This was to allow the stretched resources to be directed to medical care or to research concerned with the viral infection. Some important research was done here. Trials established the benefits of treatment with dexamethasone; eliminated from contention some of the more bizarre treatments for Covid19 infections etc. Some scientists are concerned, however, that the proposed 'pruning' exercise will add to the backlog of currently 'stalled' medical research. It could even result, they feel, in some important trials being scrapped. Although there are dangers in pruning exercises, ensuring that clinical research is well-designed and focussed is also important. A major problem is that the process could become a 'bidding war' between different medical specialisms. Research on cancer and childhood conditions have always been favoured over, for example, mental health and care of the senile. Letting politically-linked individuals choose which areas to favour, could be problematic and unfair.