Posted on 04/05/2013 12:21:26 PM PDT by matt04
he past few days, the Internet has been filled with commentary on whether the National Science Foundation should have paid for my study on duck genitalia, and 88.7 percent of respondents to a Fox news online poll agreed that studying duck genitalia is wasteful government spending.
The commentary supporting and decrying the study continues to grow. As the lead investigator in this research, I would like to weigh in on the controversy and offer some insights into the process of research funding by the NSF.
My research on bird genitalia was originally funded in 2005, during the Bush administration. Thus federal support for this research cannot be connected exclusively to sequestration or the Obama presidency, as many of the conservative websites have claimed.
Since Sen. William Proxmires Golden Fleece awards in the 1970s and 1980s, basic science projects are periodically singled out by people with political agendas to highlight how government wastes taxpayer money on seemingly foolish research.
These arguments misrepresent the distinction between and the roles of basic and applied science. Basic science is not aimed at solving an immediate practical problem. Basic science is an integral part of scientific progress, but individual projects may sound meaningless when taken out of context.
Basic science often ends up solving problems anyway, but it is just not designed for this purpose. Applied science builds upon basic science, so they are inextricably linked.
As an example, Geckskin is a new adhesive product with myriad applications developed by my colleagues at the University of Massachusetts. Their work is based on several decades of basic research on gecko locomotion.
Whether the government should fund basic research in times of economic crisis is a valid question that deserves well-informed discourse comparing all governmental expenses.
(Excerpt) Read more at masslive.com ...
LOL
I shouldn’t be surprised. The Ducks are more intelligent that her.
I don’t know which is more disturbing; that ducks have opposite-spiraling genitals, or that someone’s daughter grew up wanting to study them.
There is an infinite number of “research” opportunities. Billions of them are submarginal or losers. What makes these political Planners think they can select the ‘best’ ones? And do it, with others’ (taxpayers’) scarce investment money??
What a bunch of clueless rent-seeking factotums.
Perverts!
The FR Akin supporters should embrace this research, as female ducks DO have a way to “shut that whole thing down”.
A duck dick gap! Now that’s series!
So, male Ducks'R Limited after all?
I wonder if cold flappy feet are a turnoff to the hen or if quacker crumbs in the bed adversely effects successful penetration?
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.