I share your enthusiasm for new knowledge, and the PhD ethos, and wish you well, but something leaps out at me, from my own studies to date, which might one day be considered as going towards my own first PhD, which came onto what is now obvious to me as a global energy problem, and was redirected (my effort becoming redirected), given I can't get to the goal of my original PhD, until after this problem is sorted out.
The same problem also stands in the way of all other future and ongoing PhDs, as far as I can tell, though this won't be obvious to other researchers as yet.
The trouble is we can't have truth, real 100% truth, which all new information surely has to be, until this is sorted out.
New information has to be truth, am sure you agree, it has to be actual creation of information which technically reduces entropy rather than increases it. All results from all work of creating new information should maybe have this criteria applied, in addition to whatever criteria is applied by funders, that it must be reduction of entropy by Landauer's principle, otherwise it isn't information creation at all, but information destruction, lies, which ultimately will find it's way to yet more temperature rise, applied to the thermal mass of the planet.
In other words we would do well by elevating what looks like a fundamental law of nature, to statutory, in the PhD ethos, to ensure we always abide by it, thus assuring our work is not just more lies, as a lot of previous research work that has not been tested against Landauer's principle might be (Can of worms right there).
What we might never have realised, is that because a lot of PhDs were funded by for profit interests, the outcomes of those was never as impactful as they could have been, if not downright harmful, though unintentionally, until after we get the global energy problem sorted out.
A screaming example to me is the work done by some Japanese researchers in 2010, to confirm Landauer's principle by lab tests.
The work appears to have been funded by a utilities Energy supplier, though I have not confirmed, enquiry of funders might be tricky to try to find out, it's almost always "classified".
Anyhow, their work was presented as "A success", as was no doubt required, to satisfy an unspoken criteria of the funders, that the work would underpin their business, rather than undermine it.
The work was presented as part of an effort to investigate possible alternative means to generate energy.
The results were presented as work confirming there was possible future alternative means of generating energy, by converting information to heat energy.
Have a think about that for a second; the researchers were more or less saying that information can be converted to heat, and that this might be applied at some time in the future, as a new method of generating energy, which of course the utilities energy supplier would be expecting to make profit from.
The utilities energy supplier would presumably have been happy they got their money's worth from the research - they appear to have found at least one new method of generating energy, what looks like a new possible option for future business l, if push comes to shove, and they run out of easily extracted fossil fuels, or pofitability of nuclear, for example.
Can you see how all this logic is starting to look circular, it goes round and round, until we come to some startling revelations;
Generation of energy which is then supplied as profit, is a kind of destruction, including destruction of information, by definition.
This is literally monetisation of destruction.
The researchers weren't actually presenting new information at all, this is something we already knew but had just never presented it in a way that looks potentially porifitable. So it was a kind of dishonesty, but the funding business was happy to accept it, because the business itself can never expose that it itself is based an a fundamentally dishonest energy lie, profit, which disempowers rather than empowering anybody, it actually impoverishes and enslaves, by removing the energy from those with already least energy that might be needed to win, in what was always a zero sum game historically.
I won't bore with all the implications, my response is already long and I only just scratched the surface.
More is here:,
https://eric-bott.medium.com/forget-greenhouse-gases-ef857af9b168