I guess I thought scientific credibility is important to support recommendations from CGIAR--because of the "R" part. Anyway, a good example I just came across is a systematic study of the actual outcomes of the use of "innovation funds". It is largely positive and adds a huge amount of credibility to claims this is a good idea (as the NBDC is claiming). It illustrates my point on the importance of scientific credibility.
I guess I thought scientific credibility is important to support recommendations from CGIAR--because of the "R" part. Anyway, a good example I just came across is a systematic study of the actual outcomes of the use of "innovation funds". It is largely positive and adds a huge amount of credibility to claims this is a good idea (as the NBDC is claiming). It illustrates my point on the importance of scientific credibility.