• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Feds Spending $880,000 to Study Benefits of Snail Sex

Whitewing

Well-known member
The National Science Foundation awarded a grant for $876,752 to the University of Iowa to study whether there is any benefit to sex among New Zealand mud snails and whether that explains why any organism has sex.

The study, first funded in 2011 and continuing until 2015, will study the New Zealand snails to see if it is better that they reproduce sexually or asexually – the snail can do both – hoping to gain insight on why so many organisms practice sexual reproduction.

“Sexual reproduction is more costly than asexual reproduction, yet nearly all organisms reproduce sexually at least some of the time. Why is sexual reproduction so common despite its costs,” the study’s abstract asks.

“This project will use a different organism, Potamopyrgus antipodarum, a New Zealand snail, which has both sexual and independently-derived asexual lineages that make it ideally suited to address fundamental evolutionary questions of how genes and genomes evolve in the absence of sexual reproduction.”

In other words, the study seeks to see if there are genetic advantages to sexual reproduction that justify its evolutionary costs, advantages such as avoiding genetic mutations or gene loss.

So far, the grant has paid out $502,357, according to NSF, and could pay out the full $880,000 between now and 2015. The study is funded through what NSF calls a continuing grant meaning that it agrees with the researcher to fund a certain amount, but can end up spending more on the grant if NSF agrees that more money is warranted.

The broader aim of the study is to find out why sexual reproduction and males exist, arguing that sex is biologically inefficient for females. Because an asexual organism can simply clone itself faster than it can reproduce if it finds a mate, the study seeks to see if there are other benefits to sexual reproduction that outweigh this ‘cost’ of finding a mate.

In a University of Iowa press release announcing the grant, this is described as the “cost of males” – explaining that female organisms shouldn’t need to produce sons instead of daughters because producing daughters simply involves asexual duplication – which can then duplicate themselves – while male offspring cannot produce other male offspring unaided.

“[T]he commonness of sex is surprising because asexual females should be able to produce twice as many daughters as sexual females that make both male and female offspring,” the release says.

“Despite this and other costs, nearly all organisms reproduce sexually at least some of the time. This means that sex must be associated with profound advantages, while asexual reproduction must have significant evolutionary consequences.”

Don't you wish the feds would just stay the fark out of snail's sex lives?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Seems to me the Liberals need to stay out of the Duck's and Snail's bedroons and invest those borrowed from China bucks on more shovel ready roads and bridge projects. :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
gmacbeef said:
Snail sex & Duck dicks, Who gives a Rats ass ? :wink: Oh wait maybe they could study that too............... :?

They may not be studying Rat azzes yet but Pelosi did provide a nice little marsh for a bunch of filthy mice to live in, using your tax dollars does that count. :?
 

lonewolvie

Well-known member
Transfer payments into academia, you think that all this money gets spent on these bull excrement studies? This is why academia is pro government, easy money. This is why universities have money to burn on endless building reconstructions, landscape, and adding more bureaucracy. This money is never used to reduce tuition rates or all of the ambiguous fees that these universities charge on top of the already inflated tuition rates. It's time to call for a financial audit of the education industry.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
lonewolvie said:
Transfer payments into academia, you think that all this money gets spent on these bull excrement studies? This is why academia is pro government, easy money. This is why universities have money to burn on endless building reconstructions, landscape, and adding more bureaucracy. This money is never used to reduce tuition rates or all of the ambiguous fees that these universities charge on top of the already inflated tuition rates. It's time to call for a financial audit of the education industry.

Sounds like a great idea to me. When do we start finding someone to do the
audit? I'm not being smart, I am serious. Enough is enough!
 

Tam

Well-known member
lonewolvie said:
Transfer payments into academia, you think that all this money gets spent on these bull excrement studies? This is why academia is pro government, easy money. This is why universities have money to burn on endless building reconstructions, landscape, and adding more bureaucracy. This money is never used to reduce tuition rates or all of the ambiguous fees that these universities charge on top of the already inflated tuition rates. It's time to call for a financial audit of the education industry.

You forgot something else they burn up money on

Obama's 2008 top campaign donor list

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

Kind of looks like a you scratch my back and I'll toss you a few mill in grant money.

If they cut out the campaign donating what could that do for their bottom line and their students tuitions?
 
Top