Your tax dollars at work: $390k grant to study duck penis

Rate this post

Elizabeth Harrington reports for Washington Free Beacon that among the protesters at the “March for Science” on Earth Day, April 22, 2017, against the Trump administration’s budget cuts was Patricia Brennan, a visiting lecturer of biological sciences at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts, and a native of Columbia.

Brennan has a vested interest in taxpayers’ largesse as she is a leading researcher of a taxpayer-funded duck penis study that received $384,949 from the National Science Foundation. The grant was funded through the Obama administration’s 2009 stimulus package. The study looked at the differences in the corkscrew-shaped penises of ducks.
A recent interview with New England Public Radio revealed that Brennan is still fascinated by the genitalia of marine animals. She is now using her expertise on the penises of orca whales.
When an orca whale penis recently was delivered from Sea World to her lab, Brennan exclaimed, “Holy cow. Oh wow. Oh my goodness. It’s enormous! So this is the tip right there. It’s not super long, it’s just wide.”
New England Public Radio reported that “Although Brennan has spent 20 years studying the sex organs of marine animals, she’s never seen anything this big. It takes up an entire lab sink.”
In the face of a national debt of $20 trillion, President Trump wants to cut funding for frivolous research, among other cuts. Trump’s budget blueprint would leave the National Institutes of Health with $25.9 billion, but makes no mention of the National Science Foundation that currently gets about $7 billion annually.
Since taxpayers were informed about how much her duck penis study cost, Brennan has become a “sought-after science activist,” giving lectures on how scientists can defend their research.
Brennan said of news outlets reporting the nearly $390k grant for her duck penis study, “They were attacking everything. They were attacking the science itself, like, ‘what a waste of money.’ They were attacking me, as a person, like, I must be some kind of deviant to be looking at penises. Like, who does that?”
In a self-righteous article in Slate, Brennan justified her $390k duck penis study by its important, earth-shaking findings that:

  • Male ducks rape female ducks. (It doesn’t take a $390k study to know this. Anyone who lives near a lake, as I did, would have seen female ducks being gang-raped by males in springtime.)
  • Both the vaginas and penises of ducks have evolved in response to “sexual conflict”. As Brennan puts it, with barely suppressed outrage: “Males have counterclockwise spiraling penises, while females have clockwise spiraling vaginas and blind pockets that prevent full eversion of the male penis. Male ducks force copulations on females, and males and females are engaged in a genital arms race with surprising consequences. Male competition is a driving force behind these male traits that can be harmful to females.”

New England Public Radio calls Brennan a “basic scientist,” meaning she only observes how things work and is not “necessarily applying that knowledge to a particular problem.” In other words, there is no particular reason why she studies duck and orca whale penises. In Brennan’s words, “Just the fact that we just don’t know what we’re going to find is so exciting.”
Why, like, already beleaguered taxpayers must, like, fund her, like, “basic” pointless research on, like, marine animal penises is, like, not her concern.

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Your tax dollars at work: $390k grant to study duck penis

  1. And we paid this money for what? So she can get her kicks off at our expense. There is no reason what so ever for this so called study. Just an easy way for her to make money.

  2. Pingback: KOMMONSENTSJANE – Your tax dollar at work: $390k grant to study duck penis — Fellowship of the Minds | kommonsentsjane

  3. She must have an aversion to animals penises because no man in a sober state would ……………………….
    Here’s a study that should do .
    Find the answer to the question : Why would a person spend millions of dollars of their / taxpayers money to get a gig which pays 200 / 400 k ?
    They would probably find out the obvious . They are worthless in the private sector . They have been dumped on all their lives , it’s payback time . Stroke their ego ( and in the case of Anthony Weiner , other things ) with the ability to make people do what they want .

  4. It’s obvious she likes to look at dicks. Maybe make a life size model of the wale dick so she can sell it to woman who want to more then what a man has. Or sell it to gays to see how much they can sit on. Maybe she wonders what it’s like to have men run a train on her…..

  5. One can’t help wondering how this academician ever got any funding at all. To her and others like her engaged in trivial pursuits at the hard-working taxpayer’s expense: GO SUCK A DUCK.

    • Don’t give her any ideas , she might like it ……..Then come up the teet of the taxpayer to find out why she liked it !!!

  6. LOL – It’s 2017, and these goobers are still trying to figure out duck’s dicks?

  7. Liberals have always insisted upon ‘sexual conflict’ everywhere. They have a one-track mind. And it really helps when unsuspecting people are forced to fund the wheels of the train go round and round.

  8. The basic question to be asked when a request for a grant is tendered: What does this information have to do with the ability to better our country or the citizens of The United States of America? I cannot say that knowing the nth degree of knowledge regarding duck’s penises in any way betters our lives. It does not protect our country. It does not enrich the food supply for citizens, nor does it change or enrich the nutritional value of duck as a food source. The fact that some bimbo from a South American country comes to the US and “F-L-E-E-C-E-S” the American taxpayer is most apparent. In my whole life I have never worried about how, or in what way a duck’s penis works. I really don’t give a __________. Send this mongrel scientist home to her own country to fleece them . . . if they re stupid enough to fall for this kind of nonsense. I cannot help but believe that the whole world laughs at the US when such nonsensical expenditures of our treasure comes to light!!!!!!!!!! This crap needs to stop now!

  9. This is what they do in liberal settings. And this is why such a harsh reaction is needed. I say cut out all silly grants. and while we’re at it let’s get rid of most of the U.S.’s forigen aid. What a waste.
    How about a grant to study why phone cords get tangled from spinning in the same direction. (I know. Corded phones are on the way out.) And as an aside let’s find out if they get tangled in the oppisite direction below the equartor. We need to do this before corded phones go extinct.
    How about a study to find out why studies funded by the federal government are so expensive.
    We could hold a pre-meeting to set up a formal meeting, to select a working group, and empanel a taskforce, before a committee is formed to write a recomndation, forming a basis for oversight of a congressional caucas, to draft legislation that would be sent to the Senate for review, before being sent for reconcilation and on the the president for his signature.
    Simple how it works. Huh?

  10. What a load of crap. Does Ms Brennan have some kind of fetish?
    The Trump administration should revoke the grant and demand that whatever expense is unjustifiable be refunded. In fact, since Obama is getting $400,000 for making one of his assinine speeches, he should be made to pay up as well.

  11. The duck penis is mightier than your tax dollars.

  12. Study of Animal Penises Called “Crucial to Solving World’s Problems”

  13. Pingback: The Poster Child For Axing Ridiculous Grant Money For “Scientific” Research – IOTW Report

  14. “New England Public Radio calls Brennan a “basic scientist,” …
    I call her a hack who has to sustain her career through federal tax dollars because she can’t cut it as a scientist in the real world.


  15. LOL – Sorry. I just couldn’t hep it.

  16. Can’t she study this on her own time with her own money? WTH?

  17. Richard North

    I think its long overdue that taxpayers get better representation. Public sector unions and many (not all) folks on public programs are basically raping taxpayers tune the tune of billions.

  18. The study of science especially basic science is never a waste. Doing Basic Science leads to some interesting knowledge. Why do conservatives have such a problem with research. It’s because they don’t understand and anything they understand is redivided by small minds.
    Here is an interesting fact. Only 6 percent of those who do science are Republicans. That’s only 6 out of 100 men and women. Perhaps, the Duck penis study might bring forth a “cure” for men not aided by pills for their erectile dysfunction.

    • “The study of science especially basic science is never a waste.” You might have a different opinion of “science” if it was coming out of your checking account. We are in DEBT. A $19 Trillion debt in your checkbook might, just might, make you re-think your spending priorities.
      “Doing Basic Science leads to some interesting knowledge.” Basic science was accomplished a loooong time ago. And an interesting knowledge can be subjective. Especially when it comes to the basic biology of fetal development, which PP will not explore with taxpayer funds (unless baby body parts can offer profits which are problematic to research, I mean donations).
      There’s a reason why conservatives don’t become scientists dependent upon taxpayer monies. Cons actually want to make money, not waste it, such as Brennan. In her words, “Just the fact that we just don’t know what we’re going to find is so exciting.”
      Maybe the interesting fact is that cons don’t count on redivision of small taxpayer-funded “exciting” minds. “Just the fact that we just don’t know what we’re going to ‘cure’ is so exciting (and profitable).”

    • “Only 6 percent of those who do science are Republicans.”
      According to a 2009 Pew Research study, 55% of U.S. scientists & engineers are Democrats, 32% are independent, and the rest “don’t know” their affiliation. That would certainly account for:
      (1) Why so many “scientists” not only believe in, but have to lie about the pseudo-science of global warming, renamed “climate change” because the globe isn’t warming.
      (2) Science is riddled with fraud, including “scientific” studies published in the world’s top, peer-reviewed scientific journals — The Lancet, Science and Nature.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *