For the past couple of years, they've been talking about the outcomes of a grant they've had (there's much to be said about this grant in itself). Basically, this friend thinks the whole topic is BS, a conclusion they've come to because of their experience doing analyses and trying to publish results from the grant. It's not venting because of the workload: this person can articulate a very logical explanation for why the whole topic area is BS based on results they've obtained.
Recently, however, they were talked by some colleagues into writing an extremely large grant using some preexisting resources. What's the topic? The same thing they think is BS. So they've gone to a federal agency to request permission for millions and millions of dollars to research a topic that they think is essentially empty. Why? Because it's a very "hot" research area at the moment and is likely to bring in funds to the university.
What struck me was when I was listening was now understandable it seemed to me that they would write this grant, given how active of a research area it is. Based on my own experience as a faculty member this made sense. But at some point, I realized how ridiculous it is: if a researcher really thinks that X is problematic, shouldn't they be writing that?
I am skeptical the project in the linked site will take off but hope it will anyway. So much is completely broken in contemporary academics, and it seems it gets little attention out of certain circles. When it does get attention, it's handwaved away or becomes a political device.