The National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded a $384,949 grant to Yale University for a study on “Sexual Conflict, Social Behavior and the Evolution of Waterfowl Genitalia”, according to the recovery.gov website.
The grant description says,“The project examines how reproductive morphology covaries with season, age, and social environment in a diverse sample of duck species that differ in ecology, territoriality and breeding system."

The grant was made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus package.

The project has been receiving money from the NSF since 2009 and is slated for funding through July of this year.

“In the last quarter, we have prepared a manuscript for submission on the results of the first two years of experiments on social phenotypic plasticity in duck penis length in Lesser Scaup and Ruddy Duck. Experiments continued on genital social phenotypic plasticity in Mandarin Duck and Laysan Teal,” a 2010 fourth quarter recovery.gov update on the study says.

Many duck penises are cork-screw shaped and some scientists believe this is because of a form of evolution known as "sexual conflict".

NSF spokeswoman Deborah Wing told CNSNews.com the updated title of the study is "Sexual Conflict, Social Behavior and Evolution." Wing says, "The study met the criteria of the NSF panel of scientific peers as part of the grant approval process."

According to the NSF grant abstract the study shows that age, environment and breeding changes can impact the penis length of certain ducks, “Preliminary results of the project, suggest that male competition plays an important role in the evolution of waterfowl reproductive morphology, that male reproductive morphology is plastic depending on age and condition, and between species with different breeding systems.”

"The NSF strives to be good stewards of taxpayers dollars," Wing says, "Basic research often is combined with other research efforts and turns into bigger things."

She approves:



http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/leda-and-the-swan-rubens.jpg

Always amusing when non-scientists gripe about money spent for scientific research. $385k for basic scientific research with implications on human infertility and preeclampsia? Sounds like a bargain to me. Indeed, money well spent!

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/25/ducks-meet-the-culture-wars/

Quack, quack, quack
Attachments:

All kinds of great discoveries come out of these kinds of studies.

Penicillin, for example, is derived from a study of mold.

So, I think this might be a good use of my tax dollars...who knows.

Dolan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Always amusing when non-scientists gripe about
> money spent for scientific research. $385k for
> basic scientific research with implications on
> human infertility and preeclampsia? Sounds like a
> bargain to me. Indeed, money well spent!
>
> http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/25
> /ducks-meet-the-culture-wars/


Give me a break. You can justify virtually anything on that same potential-value basis. I have a MS in BioChem but I'm not going to start to pretend that every research project has some unassailable inherent value simply because it's fundamental research. Even if you stretch it, this isn't some directly applicable applied-type reproductive research to answer some question or solve a problem, it's more along the lines of very broad evolutionary/behavioral insight. Yes, it's interesting to someone on that basis but hardly critical research.

Hell, I got paid for a year as a research assistant to take a boat out fishing in the Bay every other week. Yeah, it was "research" and we wrote a peer-reviewed paper and if you'd have asked me then, I'd have justified it by saying the same kind of crap. But being real about it now mostly it was just a way to pay our checks and go striper fishing for free. lol

It's one thing to fund this type of stuff when you have plenty of money to throw around. What the hell, toss some money to a professor somewhere to go study limp duck dicks. But just because NSF has been given money to give way and a study meets peer-review requirements doesn't mean that money couldn't be better spent elsewhere at a time when we're effectively broke. Given that these were stimulus funds, the main intent was just to just plain spend some money.

spend it before you lose it!

Isn't that right, govies?

If you knew how much "good stuff", like medicines, or military stuff, comes out of what could or would look like some weird ass study, you'd shut the f'up.

Not every study yields incredible results, but some great stuff has come out of some weird-ass study.

$385K? Jeeesus Christ, who gives a sh**.

For a study of sexual conflict, social behavior and the evolution of waterfowl genitalia?

I've seen as many as 4 or 5 drake mallards tag teaming a single hen. Horny damn creatures.

.
Attachments:

simpletons Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you knew how much "good stuff", like medicines,
> or military stuff, comes out of what could or
> would look like some weird ass study, you'd shut
> the f'up.
>
> Not every study yields incredible results, but
> some great stuff has come out of some weird-ass
> study.
>
> $385K? Jeeesus Christ, who gives a sh**.


Same simple-minded BS. Just because some research may have benefits doesn't mean that we should fund every project that some professor somewhere comes up with. That's why it's $385K x 100,000s of cases of crap like this which goes on.

Yes, there are at times "weird ass studies" that are characterized inappropriately for effect which when you look closer have some real value. This isn't one of them.

Ohhhh, you mean to measure penis' with ducks.

My condo is worth more then 385k, that is really not much at all.

pinheads Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> simpletons Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you knew how much "good stuff", like
> medicines,
> > or military stuff, comes out of what could or
> > would look like some weird ass study, you'd
> shut
> > the f'up.
> >
> > Not every study yields incredible results, but
> > some great stuff has come out of some weird-ass
> > study.
> >
> > $385K? Jeeesus Christ, who gives a sh**.
>
>
> Same simple-minded BS. Just because some research
> may have benefits doesn't mean that we should fund
> every project that some professor somewhere comes
> up with. That's why it's $385K x 100,000s of
> cases of crap like this which goes on.
>
> Yes, there are at times "weird ass studies" that
> are characterized inappropriately for effect which
> when you look closer have some real value. This
> isn't one of them.


Dillhole, scientific study is by its very nature a hit and miss proposition. If they knew what they'd get out of study, they wouldn't need to do it, would they now?

So shut the f'up. Please.

I'm glad somebody studied mold some 80 years ago so they could figure out penicillin, or, somebody studied the blood of a horned lizard so they could figure out anti-coagulants for human blood. Or the wing of a house fly so they could make drones more efficient. All kinds of weird studies have yielded incredible results. Probably more misses than hits along the way, but what do you want to do? Stop 'em all cause they sound silly?

What a f*** nut.

All of those studies could be thrown in the same category as the duck-dick study.

shut the f up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pinheads Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > simpletons Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > If you knew how much "good stuff", like
> > medicines,
> > > or military stuff, comes out of what could or
> > > would look like some weird ass study, you'd
> > shut
> > > the f'up.
> > >
> > > Not every study yields incredible results,
> but
> > > some great stuff has come out of some
> weird-ass
> > > study.
> > >
> > > $385K? Jeeesus Christ, who gives a sh**.
> >
> >
> > Same simple-minded BS. Just because some
> research
> > may have benefits doesn't mean that we should
> fund
> > every project that some professor somewhere
> comes
> > up with. That's why it's $385K x 100,000s of
> > cases of crap like this which goes on.
> >
> > Yes, there are at times "weird ass studies"
> that
> > are characterized inappropriately for effect
> which
> > when you look closer have some real value.
> This
> > isn't one of them.
>
>
> Dillhole, scientific study is by its very nature a
> hit and miss proposition. If they knew what they'd
> get out of study, they wouldn't need to do it,
> would they now?
>
> So shut the f'up. Please.
>
> I'm glad somebody studied mold some 80 years ago
> so they could figure out penicillin, or, somebody
> studied the blood of a horned lizard so they could
> figure out anti-coagulants for human blood. Or the
> wing of a house fly so they could make drones more
> efficient. All kinds of weird studies have yielded
> incredible results. Probably more misses than hits
> along the way, but what do you want to do? Stop
> 'em all cause they sound silly?
>
> What a f*** nut.
>
> All of those studies could be thrown in the same
> category as the duck-dick study.


No, it's not. With any funded research you have an some clear objective. Because at times in rare cases there may be some unrelated discovery, doesn't justify wasting money on any old research project that comes along. On that basis we should just throw money at every project with no plan or assessment of results. That's a ridiculous assertion on its face.

You're a simple-minded sucker who thinks they're smarter than they are. Go suck a duck dick.

So, smart guy, you're saying the duck dick study does not have a clear objective? It's not really a study, then, is it?

Surely does of some very specific nature. And that's a large part of how it's judged in terms of merit for funding under normal circumstances. Recall though that this was stimulus funding which was pretty much intended just to throw money around for no other purpose than to get a bunch of money thrown around.

But that wasn't the basis for the argument made re any old research being justified for funding simply on the basis that it might result in some spontaneous, unrelated benefit.

In that case might as well just do away with NSF, the SBIR program, etc., and all of the proposal evaluations that they do and just give that and more money away to anyone doing research of any kind on the off chance that one of them might come up with something regardless whether the direct line of research is useful or not.

Ducks are notorious rapists. Out on the lake down the street, I once saw 10 or more males raping the carcass of a female duck which had been decapitated by a snapping turtle. This went for hours.