'Shrimp On A Treadmill' And The Politics Of 'Silly' Science Studies Lawmakers and political groups like to point to government spending that they say is wasteful — especially in tough economic times. And one popular target has been scientific studies that either sound silly or involve foreign countries or have to do with sex. But researchers defend the studies and don't always welcome the attention.
NPR logo

'Shrimp On A Treadmill': The Politics Of 'Silly' Studies

  • Download
  • <iframe src="https://www.npr.org/player/embed/139852035/139870243" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript
'Shrimp On A Treadmill': The Politics Of 'Silly' Studies

'Shrimp On A Treadmill': The Politics Of 'Silly' Studies

  • Download
  • <iframe src="https://www.npr.org/player/embed/139852035/139870243" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript

L: scientific studies.

: Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France.


U: Three million to study the DNA of bears in Montana...

: And $140 million for something called volcano monitoring.

: NPR's Nell Greenfieldboyce looks into what studies get singled out and how that affects science.

NELL GREENFIELDBOYCE: ABC's "Good Morning America" recently covered a report from Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.


S: The new report on how your tax dollars are being spent, it's going to be released later today...

GREENFIELDBOYCE: It blasted the National Science Foundation, a major government funder of research, saying it wasted money on projects like this.


U: Researchers figured out how to put shrimp on a treadmill, and to get more than $500,000 in the process. Look at them go!

GREENFIELDBOYCE: Who studies shrimp on a treadmill? Biologist Lou Burnett. He learned about the senator's report when CNN called him.

: I was pretty irritated.


GREENFIELDBOYCE: He says the half a million dollars was actually for a lot of different research on this economically important seafood species. The treadmills were just a small part of it, a way to measure how shrimp respond to changes in water quality. Burnett says the senator's report was misleading.

: It suggests that much money was spent on seeing how long a shrimp can run on a treadmill, which was totally out of context.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: Meanwhile, shrimp on a treadmill is becoming a shorthand for government waste. It's been featured by Forbes, in an ad from AARP, and a Mike Huckabee commentary.

: You know what? I don't care what shrimps do on a treadmill. I don't want my shrimp going to the gym.


GREENFIELDBOYCE: This kind of public mockery of scientific studies seems to have a treadmill quality of its own. It follows a pattern that's repeated over and over for decades. Here's how it goes: Find studies that either sound silly or involve foreign countries or have to do with sex. Then link that research to a big wad of government cash. Take this example from last month.

: They tried to say that about 9.4 million tax dollars was spent to study men's penis size.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: That's Jeffrey Parsons of Hunter College in New York. He's referring to a study that was criticized by a group called the Traditional Values Coalition. Parsons says he and his colleagues did publish a study on men's penis sizes and its link to the risk of sexually transmitted disease, but no tax dollars were used to collect the data. In reality, those millions of dollars went to a government program to train scientists. That program gave a small educational grant to a researcher who happened to write the paper.

: And because he credited that funding on the final publication, the Traditional Values Coalition assumed, then, that all of the funding for that postdoctoral program must have been used to pay for this penis size study.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: I called Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition, and asked her if she thought putting $9.4 million in association with that study is accurate.

: What we said was that there was an allocation of money that went, and we said a part of it was used to do this study. We stand by that. They are trying to change the subject. The people that did the study have defended it. They feel it's appropriate to spend taxpayer dollars studying the size of male anatomy. We believe America is broke. People are losing their jobs. They're losing their homes. And this is not an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: Her group has also criticized other government-funded studies, including a National Institutes of Health grant for measuring nicotine exposure in toenail clippings.

: They used recovery money, money that was meant to more or less stimulate the economy - interesting use of money, mailing in toenail clippings.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: The deputy director of the National Institutes of Health is Lawrence Tabak. He defended the use of recovery funds. And he says the toenail study has an important goal that its critics didn't mention: trying to assess people's risk of lung cancer.

: So what's scientifically sound and indeed cost-effective - to collect biospecimens for cancer research - was twisted in what was intended to ridicule an important lifesaving research effort.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: Daniel Greenberg is a journalist who's covered the politics of science for decades. He says ridiculing studies can produces headlines, but not much else.

: I don't notice that, you know, anything has happened to budgets or that the agencies have, you know, fallen to their knees and said, you know, please forgive us. We think it's terrible.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: Still, the attacks do worry officials at those science agencies.

: It does reinforce the sense of danger within the scientific community, because they are so dependent on federal money.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: The fear of repercussions can also affect individual scientists. In 2003, a lawmaker tried to stop some government-funded sexual health research. A number of scientists had their work reviewed as a result. A survey later found that over half reported feeling nervous or paranoid. Jeff Parsons says people started to be very careful when they wrote grant proposals.

: A lot of code words started to get used. We would talk about highly vulnerable youth as a euphemism for lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered youth.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: And the National Institutes of Health started requiring grants to include a public health relevance statement, a clear statement of the work's benefits. Improving public health is why Parsons says he'll continue to study sexual behavior no matter what, but he says others may get intimidated.

: And so I worry about how this type of thing affects people's desire to pursue this line of research as a career.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: One scientist says public ridicule never hurt his career. Robert Kraut is at Carnegie Mellon University. He did a study on why bowlers smile. It's now considered ground-breaking research into how people communicate, but in 1980, it got a Golden Fleece Award for wasting tax dollars from the late Democratic Senator William Proxmire. Kraut thinks scientists will always have to deal with this.

: Much of the policy debate in Washington, it's all about appearances. And it's easy in soundbites to ridicule without presenting a full story.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: Nell Greenfieldboyce, NPR News.


: This is NPR News.

Copyright © 2011 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.