NIH Funds $423,500 Study of...

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Why Men Don't Like to Use Condoms. Since I'm sure we're all tired of arguing pub vs. dem, I figured this could be one we could all agree on -- and give a big "WTF" as to why they are spending money on this.

I wish they had offered me half a million dollars to answer this question.

Article:

"The federal government is spending $423,500 to find out why men don't like to wear condoms, a project government watchdogs say is a nearly-half-a-million-dollar waste of taxpayer money.

Researchers at Indiana University's Kinsey Institute, with funding from the National Institutes of Health, are investigating why "young, heterosexual adult men" have problems using condoms. The study will include "skill-based intervention" to teach grown men how to use protection.

The first phase of the two-year study called "Barriers to Correct Condom Use" will be a simple Q&A, but doctors say the second phase will plumb uncharted territory.

"The second phase involves a laboratory study, and focuses on penile erection and sensitivity during condom application," reads the abstract from Drs. Erick Janssen and Stephanie Sanders, both of the Kinsey Institute.

"The project aims to understand the relationship between condom application and loss of erections and decreased sensation, including the role of condom skills and performance anxiety, and to find new ways to improve condom use among those who experience such problems."

The study, which was first reported by UWire, is one of many being funded by the NIH's National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

But it has government watchdogs rolling their eyes at what they say is a clear waste of taxpayer money.

"This government is so out of whack with what the priorities are that this actually makes sense that we'd be wasting money on a condom study rather than the real problems facing the country," said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste, which tracks wasteful spending in the federal budget."

FULL ARTICLE (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/19/nih-funds-study-men-dont-like-use-condoms/)

[quix]

It's from Fox so I doubt somewhat its legitimacy but if it's true it's crazy.

[tokenuser]

"Because fumbling around in the dark, ripping the box open, dropping them, finding one, opening the packet, and rolling it on kinda takes you out of the moment."

Can I have my $423K now?

Under the Bush regime, NIH and NSF funding slowed down to a trickle. With Obama, it opened right up again as funding was released for science.

That might sound like a lot of money, but when a university takes 20-45% of the received funds as "indirect costs", a faculty member of 2 take out 2/9ths of their annual salary each from the budget as "summer salary", and things like medical and benefits get added in for a grad student or two that money doesn't go very far.

I am guessing that this will have 1-2 PhDs (professors or post docs), plus 2-3 public health grad students doing the study, with travel for the PhDs to attend a conference that presents their findings.

The study is pretty much BS, but the training the grad students receive will be invaluable, and the more grad students we can keep out of coffee houses across the country the better.

[kzap]

It's from Fox so I doubt somewhat its legitimacy but if it's true it's crazy.
Agreed, I doubt that is all the study founded (a little exaggeration) but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it did, the NHS is a good system IS it is used properly and the people in charge spend the money on the right things, which it appears they are not doing here.

[tokenuser]

Agreed, I doubt that is all the study founded (a little exaggeration) but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it did, the NHS is a good system IS it is used properly and the people in charge spend the money on the right things, which it appears they are not doing here.NIH - The US National Institute of Health, not the UK NHS.

It is legit (http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp/CRISP_LIB.getdoc?textkey=7619840&p_grant_num=1R21HD060447-01&p_query=&ticket=96928666&p_audit_session_id=471881987&p_keywords=), but oversimplified for sensationalistic journalism by Faux.

[guytheninja]

"Because fumbling around in the dark, ripping the box open, dropping them, finding one, opening the packet, and rolling it on kinda takes you out of the moment."

Can I have my $423K now?


LOL, awesome.

[kzap]

NIH - The US National Institute of Health, not the UK NHS.

It is legit (http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp/CRISP_LIB.getdoc?textkey=7619840&p_grant_num=1R21HD060447-01&p_query=&ticket=96928666&p_audit_session_id=471881987&p_keywords=), but oversimplified for sensationalistic journalism by Faux.
Yea sorry I noticed that but I wasn't thinking what I was typing. I was still making the same point that just because a goverment department spend money on silly things doesn't mean the idea of that department is a bad one.

[gta_bmx]

Seems like a silly waste of money, but there are a lot of deadbeat loser dudes going around making babies that they can't or won't take care of, leaving it up to us taxpayers to feed them, house them, provide medical coverage, etc.. The 400K is chicken feed compared to what's spent on taking care of the children of deadbeat fathers.

[masherscf]

The original article from FOX is written for people who don't understand how grant funding works. The NIH has a line for the grant funding. How they spend the grant is not really political...nor should it be.

If the grant was properly written, presented and vetted, there's no reason it shouldn't be funded...regardless of how pointless a brief description is or what conclusion is presupposed.

The funding of grants is a matter of academic freedom not enjoyed by most socialist or communist countries. Nevertheless, grant funding doesn't go into a hole. Most grants are scrupulously accounted for and grant writers are accountable for results...or else the grants get canceled. Unlike Iraq reconstruction funds or Bush TARP monies which vanish without a trace, grant writers are on the hook for every penny.

But, this grant seems pretty silly to me, I wanna know what came in second place.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

"Because fumbling around in the dark, ripping the box open, dropping them, finding one, opening the packet, and rolling it on kinda takes you out of the moment."

Can I have my $423K now?HA, on my forum I said:

"Because it feels better and guys are genetically coded to knock chicks up. Use all $100's please."

I wanna know what came in second place.I know there's a "that's what she said" joke in that somewhere...

[phatlip]

I know there's a "that's what she said" joke in that somewhere...

This came to my mind for some reason...

http://images.teamsugar.com/files/users/1/13254/30_2007/eggdid.jpg

[bigshotprof]

Science costs money, even (often especially) when it appears to be confirming the obvious. I'm not surprised that the right wing doesn't get this--having given up on science in the 80's.

[masherscf]

Science costs money, even (often especially) when it appears to be confirming the obvious. I'm not surprised that the right wing doesn't get this--having given up on science in the 80's.

I've been thinking about this, the figure quoted in the OP is actually quite small for a project with this scope. If the grant lasts for a number of years, half-a-million dollars wouldn't even cover the release-time for the primary investigators.

In any case, claiming that the funding of a particular grant is an example of "wasteful government spending" is disingenuous. Grant funding is an academic matter, not a governmental one. Grant funding is peer reviewed. The system is designed so than random government bureaucrats have little control over it. The government can cancel a line that funds grants, but can't target an individual grants that has been properly vetted by the granting agency.

[ariastar]

Seems like a silly waste of money, but there are a lot of deadbeat loser dudes going around making babies that they can't or won't take care of, leaving it up to us taxpayers to feed them, house them, provide medical coverage, etc.. The 400K is chicken feed compared to what's spent on taking care of the children of deadbeat fathers.

If a woman isn't ready for a baby, she can abort, even if the man wants the child. If a man's not ready, he's forced into parenthood. If a woman can't be forced into parenthood, then a man shouldn't be either. If a woman wants a baby that a man doesn't, why is she treated like a victim of the sex she willingly participated in and given "free" money instead of given temporary assistance and forced to get a job? If a man is expected to think about having to solely support a baby because a woman may not work, why shouldn't she be expected to think about the same thing? It's a double standard.

[gta_bmx]

A few months ago, a Republican leader in Congress was ridiculing a $400,000 project to study a certain endangered animal and its habitat (forgot the animal) that would take place due to Obama's budget/stimulus package. He said: "how is THIS going to stimulate the economy?!?!" This buffoon lawmaker probably never made it past high school biology/geometry. Of course it'll stimulate the economy -- providing jobs to the researchers/assistants, plus goods/services will be purchased from vendors for use in the project. And meaningful science will come from it.

[gta_bmx]

If a woman isn't ready for a baby, she can abort, even if the man wants the child. If a man's not ready, he's forced into parenthood. If a woman can't be forced into parenthood, then a man shouldn't be either. If a woman wants a baby that a man doesn't, why is she treated like a victim of the sex she willingly participated in and given "free" money instead of given temporary assistance and forced to get a job? If a man is expected to think about having to solely support a baby because a woman may not work, why shouldn't she be expected to think about the same thing? It's a double standard.

Yeah I totally agree. The women who choose not to use protection and have sex with irresponsible men are just at fault as the men. I know women who have 2 kids with one dude, and then they meet another dude who already has 3 kids he isn't taking care of by 3 different women, and she goes and gets knocked up by this very dude. Total idiots.

Welfare recipients have to work here in Ohio. I know a woman who has 5 kids, and she works 30-35 hours a week at a home for developmentally-disabled adults doing cleaning/cooking. She doesn't get paid a cent. She's getting free rent, $800/month food stamps, Medicaid from the gov't. Her husband is disabled (almost paralyzed), so he doesn't have to go to work in that program. I think it's good to put them to work.