The most profound statement about drinking ever (1 Viewer)

[Todd K]

A recent article in the Baltimore Sun:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...temail edlink



Astounding!

 

[RichP]

In a related story, scientists have recently come to the conclusion that the reason people drink water is because they are thirsty.

This highly controversial opinion is being debated as we speak.

 

[RobertR]

Yes, and another study says people have sex because it feels good.

 

[Holadem]

Well, I only drink for the taste (getting wasted is an unfortunate side effect), and the one time I got laid was to conceive my daughter.

--
H

 

[Joe Szott]

I can't wait for the follow-up research that shows people become more attractive in relation to how much alcohol one has consumed. They'll call it the "Ocular Distortion via Grain Alcohol" theory.

 

[Colton]

Ahh! Our tax dollars hard at work.

- Colton

 

[Garrett Lundy]

This groundbreaking work only adds to the acclaim Professor Johnson first earned with his 2001, award winning thesis; 'Smoking pot linked to "gettin' high"'.

 

[Lynda-Marie]

Joe, just remember the old saying: "Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder."

 

[Mark Sherman]

Holy $%^& thats funny.

 

[Jeff_CusBlues]

Exactly. When we were college drinkers, my friends and I used to say that we drink now to get drunk and bitch about the taste, and when we get older, we will drink for the taste and bitch about getting drunk. Of course, I have yet to reach that advanced age.

 

[John Kilduff]

"HI, BOB!"

Sincerely,

John Kilduff...

Who wants a shot?

 

[FeisalK]

seeing as the research is inconclusive as yet, is it ongoing, and is there any way to participate?

 

[Blu]

Well I can tell you that the only reason I drink is to get that awful water aftertaste out of my mouth.

Sheesh, has anyone really tried that stuff????

It is overrated!

 

[Christ Reynolds]

no kidding. purity of essence, my ass!

CJ

 

[ShelbyB]

Who pays for these studies. Seriously, does anyone know?

 

[andrew markworthy]

As a British academic, I think I can answer this, but apologies if there are any peculiarly American quirks I don't know about. Grant money generally comes from two main sources:

(1) funds from publically-funded bodies
(2) funds from charitable bodies (this may include individual benefactors)

The money is usually allocated in two ways:

(1) a grant body advertises that it will fund research on topic X (e.g. drinking behavior) and invites researchers to put in bids
(2) a grant body has a pool of money that it will make available to successful bids. Each grant body has limitations on what it will fund (e.g. purely medical work, purely research on aging, etc).

A bid for money is a very long and complex procedure. Typically, you are required to give a lengthy analysis of the existing research and show what is lacking. You then have to present a detailed description of experiments (or studies) you will run to analyse the problem and come up with something to fill the gap. On top of that, you have to produce detailed costings for every stage in the procedure. All this is incredibly time-consuming, and bids can take months to produce. If you are really on top of your game, you have a 1 in 3 chance of getting a bid accepted and for most researchers, the odds are much longer. If you want to be a successful researcher, you are constantly on a treadmill of grant-seeking. If you've ever wondered what your professors did other than teach, the answer is that a large (arguably too large) an amount of time is spent chasing grants.

The danger with the system is that grant bodies usually have far too little money to go around and so they are keenly aware that anything they fund must be productive. Well, d'uh, you all say. However, the danger is that research bids that are safe (i.e. unlikely to produce anything really innovative but also highly likely to find at least something) get accepted, whilst the genuinely innovative (but also potentially risky - i.e. it may not produce a thing if it goes wrong) is far less likely to succeed. In addition, money available to grant bodies fluctuates, with the result that some years there is more to go round than others (with the result of course that some years more research can be funded than in others). I recall getting a bid rejected by a particular grant body in a financially lean year. Two years later, more money was available, and a colleague got a grant accepted from the same grant body on a much lower rating score than I had got for my rejected application. Oh how I laughed ... not.

With regard to the specific grant referred to here - before making judgements, I think you need to see the whole report and not just an isolated quotation. E.g. I can remember a major study on pilot error, that when acted on made significant improvements to air travel safety. However, an unfortunate remark said that the report had concluded that people make mistakes. Cue the inveitable 'why is our tax money being wasted on this?' etc.

 

[MichaelBA]

Why is our tax money being wasted on this?!?

 

[andrew markworthy]

It wasn't - I wrote it before office hours started.

 

[Max Leung]

Translation from Yoda-speak to english:

My ass: Purity of essence.

*backs away slowly*

Andrew, how's the grant proposal for the study of well-endowed bar waitresses versus tips going?

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

"In our top story, scientists have said that they have discovered new evidence, the new evidence will be used to replace the old evidence." -Kevin Nealon Saturday Night Live