It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, May 10, 2016 Taxpayers paid for one scientist to have a bee sting his penis and paid other researchers to figure out that cheerleaders look more attractive in a group than individually, according to a painful new survey of wasteful spending released Tuesday by Sen. Jeff Flake. At a time when the Obama administration is pleading for more money to fight the Zika virus, repair water pipes in Flint, Michigan, and combat the growing opioid epidemic, the ridiculous research projects suggest there’s plenty of room to save money already in the budget, Mr. Flake said.
Unnecessary projects included the $50,000 for researchers who studied femininity and masculinity in members of Congress. The National Science Foundation paid the University of California, Los Angeles to conclude that Republican women are feminine and Democratic women are not.
Taxpayers paid for one scientist to have a bee sting his penis
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: paxnatus
Maybe it's a sinister plan for future torture of detainees!
originally posted by: peter_kandra
a reply to: paxnatus
Exactly how does one get a bee sting in the penis? Doing a little skinny dipping? That hurts just thinking about it.
I wonder how much of this is use it or lose it funding prior to the end of the fiscal year, so they dust off some old grant proposals from the shelf and fund them.
I mean you are complaining about $50,000 spent on a study while the government is dumping BILLIONS into wars, death, destruction, and other stuff that we find questionable. Get your priorities straight.
Why did the U.S. government spend 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly?
What about the billions of $$ used to underwrite mega-churches, Christian Schools, Universities, etc?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Could this be an instance of selective outrage?
The grant "was not awarded for that purpose," John Bowersox told us via e-mail back in November 2010. "Rather, the researchers will use the grant to develop, implement and evaluate an alcohol use and HIV risk reduction intervention program among female sex workers in China. This is in line with previous studies showing that social norms and institutional policy in commercial sex venues greatly influence alcohol use and sexual behavior among the sex workers in those venues. Studies such as these are needed to translate and adapt interventions that have proven to be effective in the U.S. to other settings and to learn from other conditions and cultures to inform our understanding of the causes, consequences and differences in HIV-related risks, morbidity and mortality in diverse populations. Preventing HIV infection is NIH’s highest priority for HIV-related research. We need to explore a range of research avenues in vulnerable populations around the world to learn the best ways to control the transmission of HIV."
Bowersox noted that the grant went through the NIH's two-tier review process, "which includes a scientific and technical review as well as consideration by an Advisory Council that includes public representatives. The Council makes recommendations based on alignment of the grant application with the research priorities of the NIH."