We here at Discoblog consider it our duty to bring attention to terrible science stories. Some recent notable bombs include “Woman are evil and want your husband” and “Twitter Will Make You Eeevil.”

Now, here’s an example of a good story about some bad research: The BBC reports that British researchers are conducting all manner of frivolous experiments, including how to make the perfect piece of toast. The study isn’t new— the flurry of news about it occurred in 2003—but the debate over the need for important research versus, well, silly work is as fresh as ever.

Here are the details: Leeds University food scientist Bronek Wedzicha studied what temperature of bread and butter would make the most delicious toast. The research was part of a PR effort by butter company Lurpak to get the word out—in case you were wondering—that butter is tasty.

BBC reports:

“The equation, which was spurious, captured the imagination but we didn’t get the flavour-release message across. It was aimed at the food industry and scientists working in flavour science and people who are formulating food and trying to work out what properties they need,” says Wedzicha…

“We wouldn’t work exclusively to do PR, we have to have an economic return, which in this case was a greater understanding of flavour release mechanism,” says Wedzicha. “We got £10,000 and Lurpak got some very good PR out of it.”

Granted, some areas of frivolous research have turned up interesting results. Students from University of Plymouth studied the infinite monkey theory by putting a computer in a cage with six primates, but the monkeys destroyed the computer and managed to type the letter “s” over and over again. And when a sword swallower and a radiologist surveyed 100 sword swallowers about their injuries, they learned that many suffered from major bleeding of the stomach.

There’s talk about revising the distribution of research money, so that funds go to researchers working on projects with the most social, economic, and cultural impact. However, silly science isn’t always a bad thing, some researchers argue—if someone finds something interesting while researching their life-long work, then the extra attention can only help them.

Related Content:
Discoblog: The World’s First “All Synthetic” Meal Graces a Five-Star Table

Image: flickr/ westwrite

Could all those furry lab rodents soon be replaced with insects? Possibly, as Irish scientists discovered while testing how the immune systems of insects fights off a bacterial or fungal infection. It turns out insect cells respond to infections the same way mammals’ cells do, producing similarly structured enzymes to kill off intruding microbes.

When National University of Ireland’s biologist Kevin Kavanagh looked at immune cells in insects, and compared them to the white blood cells in mammals, he found that they both fought the invading pathogen through a similar chemical attack—which makes sense given that mammals and insects have immune systems that are 90 percent identical.

The researchers believe that substituting moths in the initial testing of new antimicrobial drugs could reduce the demand for mice by 80 percent. Reuters reports:

“It is now routine practice to use insect larvae to perform initial testing of new drugs and then to use mice for confirmation tests,” said Kevin Kavanagh, a biologist from the National University of Ireland, who presented his research at a Society for General Microbiology meeting in Edinburgh.

“This method of testing is quicker, as tests with insects yield results in 48 hours whereas tests with mice usually take 4 to 6 weeks. And it is much cheaper too.”

The cost savings of switching to bugs would be enormous: A caterpillar costs 16 to 32 cents, while a mouse chews up between $80 to $130 per experiment. Kavanagh tested 700 new drugs using a relatively small number of insects—the same research would have needed 14,000 mice.

Related Content:
DISCOVER: Mice Breed Without Fathers
80beats: Mouse Cloned From Deep Freeze

Image: flickr/ CameraShyMom

While the $787 billion stimulus bill has not been without controversy, it has also achieved a rare accomplishment: creating something on which most scientists agree. The new bill will distribute a lot of money, so much so that many of the recipients in the science community are overjoyed—even if they aren’t necessarily prepared to handle it.

The extent to which some offices will be overwhelmed is exemplified by this reporting in The New York Times:

Utah expects that its state energy office will receive $40 million for energy efficiency, renewable energy and related programs—123 times the size of the office’s current budget, said Jason Berry, who manages the four-person unit. He is about to go on a hiring spree.

Equally thrilled with their soon-to-be windfalls, scientists have made some prize comments in the media this week about their good fortunes. Here are a few of our favorites:

“It’s like they finally got to the other side of the desert and it’s pouring rain,” Seth Kaplan, vice president of the Conservation Law Foundation. (The New York Times)

“We’re kind of like the dog that caught the car…[though] if we don’t [distribute the money] well, the technical term is: we are toast,” Ernest Moniz, a M.I.T. physicist who served as undersecretary of energy for President Bill Clinton. (Nature News)

(more…)