Sex-Based neanderthals – F*** Your Way to Clear Sinuses!

Suffice it to say that 2021 has been a rough year for many people- and I'm not just saying that because nobody's been willing to play me in Thunderbolt online casino. The pandemic, and the out-of-proportion response to the said pandemic, has cost millions of people their mental health, their human rights, their privacy, their livelihoods, and even their lives. To top it all off, some of us get stuffed noses as the seasons change, which is really like rubbing salt in the wound. And speaking of rubbing…

For the past two years, most news articles relating to science have been focused mostly on the global pandemic. Which is sad because there have been some important progressions in the scientific community that deserve far more attention than they are getting- like the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope, which will allow us to gaze back into the universe further than ever before.

But what about the rest of the science that happened? The unglorified, hard work of millions of scientists who compete for decades on end to prove that they can, and will, waste just as much of their short lifespans on trivial nonsense as the rest of us? For all those people, exists the Ig Noble Prizes.

Marc Abrahams, the 'Pope of Improbable Science'

This is a man and organization that I didn't know existed until very recently. It was founded by Marc Abrahams, who serves as master of ceremony and co-founded the magazine Annals of Improbable Research. He hosted the first Ig Noble Prize Ceremony in 1991, where Ig Noble prizes are handed out by real Noble Prize winners at a gala event held every year at Harvard University. The last two were, naturally, held online.

This year's presenters (AKA: Real Nobel Prize Winners) included:

1. Rich Roberts (physiology or medicine, 1993)
2. Frances Arnold (chemistry, 2018)
3. Marty Chalfie (chemistry, 2008)
4. Eric Maskin (economics, 2007)
5. Barry Sharpless (chemistry, 2001)
6. Robert Lefkowitz (chemistry, 2012)
7. Carl Weiman (physics, 2001)
8. Eric Cornell (physics, 2001)
9. Jerome Friedman (physics, 1990)

And now, to the Ig Nobel winners and their vital research…

Can Sex Improve Nasal Function?—An Exploration of the Link Between Sex and Nasal Function

I simply couldn't change the paper title above, so I copied it verbatim.

It's beautiful.

Yes, this is a real paper published in a real scientific journal by real scientists. You can credit this vital, climactic research to Olcay Cem Bulut, MD, Dare Oladokun, MBChB, Burkard M. Lippert, MD, Ralph Hohenberger, MD. In other words, blame Ralph. In their study, they looked into the question most of us had never dared to ask: Can I f*** my way out of a clogged nose?

Well, there's only one way to find out.

According to the researchers' exhaustive and thorough research paper, the researchers evaluated nasal breathing at five different times: The first before sex, which was the baseline. The second immediately after sex. The third, thirty minutes after having sex. The fourth, and hour after sex. And the fifth, three hours after sex.

The results were simultaneously surprising and yet made complete sense. The paper demonstrates that having sex actually works as well as decongestants for up to sixty minutes after the act. The researchers included a nifty graph in their paper to prove it.

For such pivotal work, the researchers were awarded an Ig Nobel Prize 'for demonstrating that sexual orgasms can be as effective as decongestant medicines at improving nasal breathing'.

Now, uh, excuse me. I'm suddenly feeling a bit stuffed up…

Studying Movie Theatre Air… to see if you can tell how Violent the Movie Was

This paper was titled, 'Proof of concept study: Testing human volatile organic compounds as tools for age classification of films'. If it weren't for another winner that I'll get to later on, I'd think that this title was taking the piss in terms of length. Of course, I can't talk. I love stupidly long and obnoxious titles.

In layman's terms, the paper looked into whether the air inside of movie theatres, which is affected by pheromones, farts, popcorn, breathing, and body odor, can be used to identify what rating the film was. And the answer turns out to be… maybe?

Time and money well spent, my dudes.

Side Walk Chewing Gum: A Whole New World

Have you ever wondered what happens to gum spat on the sidewalk? Perhaps you are one of the neanderthals that spit gum on the said sidewalk? Well, unfortunately, while this still hasn't been made into a capital crime yet, researchers decided it was worth their time to study the bacterium that builds up in and on gum found on streets across the planet. Yes, the researchers traveled out and took eight samples from different countries across the planet and analyzed them in a lab. The results?

The gum was very icky, but the sample sizes were too small to draw any major conclusions.

Are Fat Politicians More Likely to Be Corrupt?

Finally, a useful study!

Titled "Obesity of politicians and corruption in post-Soviet countries", this research paper, put together by Pavlo Blavatskyy, does exactly what the title says. Pavlo took images of post-soviet politicians off the internet and used a machine learning algorithm that analyzes their faces to determine BMI. This algorithm is, apparently, fairly accurate. So much for "the camera adds ten pounds". He then checked to see if there was a correlation between these BMI results and corruption indexes put together by 'conventional measures of corruption'. These included the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, World Bank worldwide governance indicator Control of Corruption, and the Index of Public Integrity.

Apparently, there IS a correlation. Fatter politicians ARE more corrupt. Huh, who'd have thunk? Now we just need to do a study like this in the west to see if it holds up…

Beards Were Evolved for… combat?

I feel like I have to point out that while the researchers of the other studies in this list come from all across this globe, the researchers of THIS paper are American. Ethan Beseris, Steven Naleway, and David Carrier decided to test their hypothesis that beards were evolved to reduce the damage one takes from punches, as detailed in their delightfully titled paper, "Impact Protection Potential of Mammalian Hair: Testing the Pugilism Hypothesis for the Evolution of Human Facial Hair."

The answer: Kind of!

Quote, "Furred samples experienced lower peak impact forces and were loaded more slowly. These factors contributed to a reduced rate of furred sample failure as compared to sheared and plucked samples. Thus, the results of this study indicate that hair is indeed capable of significantly reducing the force of impact from a blunt strike and absorbing energy, thereby reducing the incidence of failure. If the same is true for human facial hair, then having a full beard may help protect vulnerable regions of the facial skeleton from damaging strikes, such as the jaw. Presumably, full beards also reduce injury, laceration, and contusion, to the skin and muscle of the face. Although not tested in this study, it is also likely that the hair of beards helps deflect an oblique blow by reducing friction between the face and the object striking it. These protective functions of beards may provide an advantage in male contest competition and therefore be selectively favored."

Who'd have guessed?

THE PULMONARY AND METABOLIC EFFECTS OF SUSPENSION BY THE FEET COMPARED WITH LATERAL RECUMBENCY IN IMMOBILIZED BLACK RHINOCEROSES (DICEROS BICORNIS) CAPTURED BY AERIAL DARTING

Whoever wrote this paper knew what they were doing when they wrote that beautiful title. It's such an absurd title, reduced to absolute nonsense via big words. Basically, the research was done by all these lovely gents:

Robin W. Radcliffe, Mark Jago, Peter vdB Morkel, Estelle Morkel, Pierre du Preez, Piet Beytell, Birgit Kotting, Bakker Manuel, Jan Hendrik du Preez, Michele A. Miller, Julia Felippe, Stephen A. Parry, Robin D. Gleed

looked into whether or not transporting a rhinoceros after tranquilizing it with a dart gun is safer if carried upside down, by the feet, or sideways. The results?

Well, all I'm going to say is that General Cornelius of Celesteville would be pleased. Man, is anyone going to get that reference?

Conclusion

Science is a process, and while I tease and prod at the studies I've shown and listed, I begrudge the fact that they were done. Because who knows? It might have turned out that dangling Rhinoceroses by the feet from helicopters was the evolutionary kick they needed to gain sapience. We never would have known if someone didn't try.

This is sadly the fate of most scientific work. A lot of it is grunt work that rarely reveals anything new but confirms answers that the rest of us take for granted. Useful work, although not particularly sexy (aside from, you know, the one about sex).

So in spite of my teasing, sometimes it's good to invest some time in something not so serious. The studies above may not have been groundbreaking, revolutionary, or inspiring - but gosh darn it, I appreciate that they were done.