The National Institutes of Health (NIH) subsidized a study attempting to find out if a gay man’s penis size has any correlation with his sexual health.
The research, titled “The Association between Penis Size and Sexual Health among Men Who Have Sex with Men,” began in 2006 and surveyed 1,065 gay men. Among its key findings: Those gay men who felt they had small or inadequate penis sizes were more likely to become “bottoms,” or anal receptive, while gay men with larger penises were more likely to identify themselves as “tops,” or anal insertive.
Another discovery from the research: men with smaller penises were more likely to be psychologically troubled than those with larger genitalia. The goal of the study was to understand the “real individual-level consequences of living in a penis-centered society.”
The researchers at Hunter College Center for HIV/AIDS Educational Studies Training (CHEST) got taxpayer money as part of an NIH grant that went to Public Health Solutions and the National Development and Research Institutes, Inc. (NDRI).
NDRI has received taxpayer money since 1985 for “behavioral science research on drug abuse, AIDS and crime.” NIH records show that NDRI has received more than $15 million since 2000.
The gay men penis-size study falls under the NDRI’s drug abuse, AIDS and crime research category. In 2006, the year the organization started funding the penis-size research, it received $899,769 in taxpayer money. (Woman tries to sell three-day-old infant to Taco Bell customer)
Grant records indicate that NIH funds NDRI wth taxpayer dollars in order to “prepare behavioral scientists, especially from minority backgrounds, for careers in drug abuse research and allied fields” — a goal accomplished by “recruiting and appointing promising scientists, half from minority backgrounds, for traineeships,” giving them “advanced training in substantive topics and theory, research methods and practices, and the ethical conduct of research,” and by ”mentoring and advising trainees.”
“We’ve got nameless, faceless bureaucrats who thought this was a good use of taxpayer money,” says Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition, which surfaced the penis-size study. “But, at the end of the day, it was the NIH directors who signed off on it. These nameless, faceless bureacrats seem to think the American taxpayers are a limitless ATM machine.”
This study isn’t the only questionable behavioral science research that Lafferty’s organization found by digging through NIH grant records. (SNL alum says Obama is ‘basically Hitler’)
At the University of Wisconsin at Madison, researchers are attempting to use video games to break “bias” against women and minorities in the so-called “STEMM” hard-science fields (science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine).
The study, which received just under $2 million in 2010 stimulus package money and is likely to receive similar amounts each year through 2013 (according to NIH grant documents), aims to teach faculty about their “implicit stereotype-based biases” against minorities and women by developing a video game. According to the researchers, the video game will teach faculty members to “recognize and self-correct” those biases, even if they’re “unintentional.”