[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5798-5799]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, in the fall of 2014, an outbreak had the 
world on edge in West Africa. The Ebola virus had come about, and three 
countries were being decimated. It was at this time that the director 
of the National Institutes of Health gave an interview where he argued 
that a vaccine would likely be available if the Congress had enough 
funding for the agency. He added that the Ebola virus had forced NIH to 
divert money from other critical research.
  These are striking charges, especially for an agency that has a 
budget of $30 billion. So it stands to reason that if underfunding NIH 
was allowing a crisis such as this, we ought to be appropriating more 
money to the agency.
  We cannot ignore the fact, obviously, that at that time the Nation 
was $18 trillion in debt and running nearly a half-trillion-dollar 
deficit. So I began to look into NIH funding and some of the research 
projects that were being funded. Here are some of the questions I found 
researchers were trying to find answers to.
  One of the questions they were trying to find answers to at the NIH, 
and this was part of a taxpayer-funded study or grant, is: Why do some 
people see Jesus's face on toast? That is right, a taxpayer-funded 
study to determine why people see the face of Jesus on toast.
  Another study that was funded by NIH is: Do drunk birds slur when 
they sing? That was part of a $5 million NIH grant that found not only 
is the answer yes, but according to NIH standards, there is a binge-
drinking bird out there now.
  They also wanted to answer the question of: What type of music do 
monkeys and chimpanzees prefer to listen to? I am not sure what is more 
surprising, the fact that the NIH wanted to study this or that the 
answer is Metallica.
  Another thing they wanted to study: Is yawning contagious? I would 
say anyone who has ever listened to a Senator give a speech knows the 
answer is yes, but the NIH decided to spend taxpayer money to study it 
anyway.
  So I began seeing projects being funded by other research arms within 
the Federal Government, including the National Science Foundation and 
DARPA in the Defense Department. Here are some of the questions those 
agencies are using their multibillion-dollar budgets to try to answer: 
Where does it hurt to be stung most by a bee? One researcher used part 
of a $1 million NSF grant to sting each part of his body. He came to 
the conclusion it is most painful on the nostrils or on the lips or on 
other, shall we say, more sensitive areas, although he admitted his 
adviser would not allow him to be stung on the eyeball so we really 
don't know which body part holds the title of being the most painful.
  Another thing that was studied by NSF and DARPA is: Who will be 
America's next top model? That is right. Taxpayer money was spent to 
try to find out who would be America's next top model. Researchers used 
taxpayer money to scour Twitter and Instagram to develop scientific 
models that could forecast success for models in the fashion industry. 
It turns out that having a strong social media presence helps more than 
meeting the industry's ``aesthetic standards.'' This is a phenomenon 
the researchers dubbed the ``Kendall Jenner effect.'' Not surprising 
there.
  Another study was: Are chimpanzees better gamers than humans? At 
least one chimpanzee that was sometimes bribed with candy to keep 
working was better than humans at gaming. Unfortunately, that 
chimpanzee has since died from complications from diabetes. That study 
which found that humans are not above trying to cheat in order to beat 
a chimp at a video game was part of a $340,000 grant awarded by NSF and 
NIH.
  I am not going around here trying to say that NIH, NSF, DARPA, and 
other federally funded research is a waste of money. It is not. To the 
contrary, I believe federally funded research can do wonderful and 
amazing things.
  In 1961, at the height of the Cold War, the United States faced the 
Soviet Union in a heated space race. President John F. Kennedy stood 
before Congress and aimed for the Moon. He said:

       I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the 
     goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon 
     and returning him safely to the earth. No single space 
     project in this period would be more impressive to mankind, 
     or more important for the long-range exploration of space.

  Armed with a clearly defined goal and backed by concentrated research 
from the Federal Government, America's best scientists, researchers, 
and engineers got to work. Eight years later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz 
Aldrin were walking on the Moon. That is a towering feat that no 
country has ever been able to repeat. More than a half century later, 
that moonshot stands in stark contrast to a massive and disorderly 
constellation of federally funded science projects floating aimlessly 
in the Federal budget.
  Projects that ask, for example: Are Republicans or Democrats more 
disgusted by eating worms? This researcher whom you will see in this 
picture found that the answer is that Republicans are more disgusted. 
That said, once folks hear that this study was funded with taxpayer 
money----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FLAKE. When folks hear that this study was funded by taxpayer 
dollars, I am sure there will be equal disgust by both Republicans and 
Democrats.

[[Page 5799]]

  Another study was funded to see if one can outrun a dinosaur. The NSF 
and NIH gave taxpayer dollars to enterprising researchers who are not 
deterred by the fact that dinosaurs are now extinct. They found an 
alligator was close enough. They had to put him on a treadmill to find 
out how fast he could run. They found out what nobody--certainly not 
even the Presiding Officer from Louisiana--would discover; that 
alligators don't like treadmills very much. He wasn't very cooperative, 
but they went ahead with the study, and found that humans could 
probably outrun a dinosaur. It is a good thing.
  ``Are cheerleaders more attractive when they are a part of a squad?'' 
was another study we funded. This was a NSF taxpayer-funded grant that 
was actually inspired by the sitcom ``How I met Your Mother.'' They had 
something on that show called the cheerleader theory. Researchers found 
that the answer is, yes, cheerleaders are more attractive as part of a 
squad than individually. Their tongue-in-cheek research paper 
postulates that ``having a few wingmen or wingwomen may indeed be good 
dating strategy, particularly if their facial features complement, and 
average out, one's unattractive idiosyncrasies.''
  That brings us full circle, as the White House has asked Congress to 
appropriate $1.5 billion for emergency spending to tackle the latest 
crisis, Zika. I believe we do need to find a solution and a vaccine for 
the Zika virus, but we ought to look hard at the other things that 
these agencies are spending money on as we talk about more money for 
these research projects.
  To that end, I have released ``Twenty Questions: Government Studies 
that will Leave You Scratching Your Head.'' This is a study--you can 
see the cover here--the report not only profiles many of the 
questionable projects I have highlighted today, it seeks to set a path 
to ensure that our money is spent wisely.
  The report recommends that these agencies set clearly defined 
national goals and objectives for federally funded research. Following 
the example set by President Kennedy's moonshot more than a half 
century ago, we ought to give the agencies a clear mission.
  The report also recommends that agencies prioritize billions of 
dollars in existing Federal research funding to best meet the national 
goals in a manner that strengthens America's scientific leadership. We 
also need to ensure that these research projects are transparent. So 
when funding goes to these research projects, we ought to know how much 
is spent on each individual project, not just the broader grant. We 
don't know exactly how much money was spent on the cheerleader effect 
because we can't--they will not tell us.
  I have introduced legislation in concert with this report which will 
require that the Federal agencies actually tell us how much money is 
spent on these individual projects.
  It is time Washington sets clear goals for federally funded research 
and we improve transparency measures. I hope we can do so.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield back.

                          ____________________