It seems like a NIH version of May’s NSF funding kerfuffle is a brewin’! While the NSF kerfuffle’s poster child was shrimp-on-a-treadmill, the NIH’s kerfuffle poster child is penis size. More specifically, the research presented in the Archives of Sexual Behavior article The Association between Penis Size and Sexual Health among Men Who Have Sex with Men.
I’ve just started looking into this penis size research kerfuffle and there are two things I find interesting. One, the kerfuffle instigator and the kerfuffle timeline. The instigator is the Traditional Values Coalition, who say they conducted a…
six-month investigation of NIH grant applications based on publicly available information and tips from NIH employees uncovered more than half a billion in grant monies paid to researchers to conduct bizarre projects such as measuring the penis size of homosexual men and asking individuals to mail in their toenail clippings. [excerpt from TVC's NIH Wastes Millions on Bizarre "Research"]
Here’s the kerfuffle timeline I’ve hodgepodged together….
What does it all mean? Will there be a full-blown kerfuffle? My eye is on the timeline’s future events…
_____________________
@DrRubidium JAYFK Editor-in-Commandant 3Editorial Materials and MethodsmAfter reading the Jezebel post (see Additional Reading), I started drinking (coffee), tracking down the research paper and articles on said research paper. Given that the article came out in 2009, it struck me as interesting it hit the news in 2011.
Additional Reading
- NIH-Backed Study Examined Effects of Penis Size in Gay Community (FoxNews)
- Thousands of tax dollars funded a study on penis size in the gay community (Daily Mail)
- Feds pay for study of gay men’s penis sizes (Daily Caller)
- A Very Important Study On The Penis Size Of Gay Men (Jezebel)
- “Top” or “bottom?” NIH-funded study links gay sexual preference to penis size (LGBT Weekly)
- US government under-fire for study linking penis size to whether gay men ‘top’ or ‘bottom’ (Pink News)
Pingback: We got a letter! |