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

An assemblage of thinkers sat down on Saturday afternoon at The New School to talk science, faith, and religion. Befitting an event of New York City’s World Science Festival, science was decidedly not on trial. Instead, the group—three practicing scientists and a philosopher, along with one journalist—took turns defining and professing their ideas about a supernatural force and the relationship of religious faith to science.

Early on, moderator Bill Blakemore came understandably close to stumbling off the session’s lofty stated aim (a “nuanced conversation that transcends simplistic assertions”) as he introduced the panelists and tabulated how many fell into several categories on the “scientist v. religious leader” spectrum. A list of statements handed out to the audience and beamed onto a screen before the presentation (“Religion is a social reflex,” “Faith is what science and religion have in common,” etc.) also proved to be a bit unwieldy when Blakemore asked each panelist to identify problematic items from the list.

Colin McGinn dove right in, taking issue with the statement: “Atheism is a position of faith…as is religious belief,” by deploying the analogy that no one would say it’s irrational to deny the existence of Santa Claus. But the list spurred panelist Guy Consolmagno to comment that unlike the one- or two-liners on the list, “great truths don’t fit on a bumper sticker,” quipping, “I read that once on a bumper sticker.”

The panelists quickly dug deeper. Consolmagno, a Jesuit brother and astronomer at the Vatican Observatory, exhorted listeners not to foster preconceptions of what a scientific or religious person is. Fellow Roman Catholic Ken Miller burst at least a few preconceptions when he suggested that the virgin birth of Christ could be a metaphor, written to make people take notice of the importance of that birth.
(more…)

This just in: Nerdy 16-to-25-year-old male science students are the most likely to be virgins of any of 185 students at the University of Sydney, according to a new study. Australian psychotherapist Stephen Carroll asked students in different departments about their sexual past and their knowledge of Chlamydia. While the male science students had the least amount of sex, female art students reportedly had the most, and also knew the least about the common STD.

What’s going on for all those lonely science majors? They’re spending too much time in the lab, according to Carroll. And given that the majority of science classes are still predominantly male, these deprived men probably aren’t going to find dates in their physics or engineering class. Maybe they should consider enrolling in drawing or painting 101.

Credit: flickr/ motoyzf222