Who doesn’t love a good duck penis? Carl Zimmer has written about them for The New York Times and The Loom. Ed Yong has written about them. So have I. In fact, duck penises are what won me a signed copy of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks signed by Rebecca Skloot at Science Online 2010. So I feel like I owe them something in exchange. That’s why I donated money to research that will be measuring the explosive erection of the duck. And you can too.

As part of the #SciFund Challenge, a crowdfunding initiative for science research, ecologist Patty Brennan and biomechanics expert Diane Kelly are seeking funding for “Force of Duck: Measuring Explosive Erection.” There are three days left for the #SciFund Challenge, so go make their holidays a little brighter and help fund this fascinating research!

I’m excited to announce that my Friday Weird Science guest post for Neurotic Physiology was chosen for publication in The Open Lab 2011! For those unfamiliar with The Open Lab series, it is an annual anthology of the best writing on science blogs.

A note from Sci: The authors took the opportunity in the manuscript to thank their hardworking, and probably long suffering, medical illustrator. Yes, Matthew Timberlake, our hats are off. How we do thank YOU. You are, in your own way, a Real Man of Genius (TM)

Men, let’s talk about that space between your testicles and your anus (taint anus, taint balls – Sci). The length of your member doesn’t really have a whole lot to do with your reproductive fitness, but the length of your taint does. It’s time to put away the rulers and whip out the digital calipers!

A new study came out in PLoS ONE earlier this week, claiming to be the first assessment of anogenital distance in adult men, as well as the first examination of the relationship between anogenital distance and a man’s fertility. I hate to break it to the researchers from Baylor College of Medicine and Stanford University School of Medicine, but you are not the first. A VERY similar study came out two months ago in Environmental Health Perspectives, which Sci so awesomely blogged. As Sci mentioned, anogenital distance is used to sex animals– shorter for females, longer for males. Anogenital distance has also been studied in human infants, mirroring what we know to be true in the animal world (which makes sense, because we are animals)…but no one had studied this in adults up until recently, which leads us back to the sudden interest in measuring men’s taints.

Eisenberg ML, Hsieh MH, Walters RC, Krasnow R, Lipshultz LI, 2011 The Relationship between Anogenital Distance, Fatherhood, and Fertility in Adult Men. PLoS ONE 6(5): e18973.

Why do we care how long a man’s taint is, anyway? Well, because in the past half century there has been a reported decline in semen quality and male births with an increased rate in male genital abnormalities and testicular cancer….and no one likes cancer, or malformed genitals, or weak semen. Previous studies have shown that in addition to reduced anogenital distance, rodents exposed to certain phthalates (these are special chemicals added to plastics to increase flexibility and durability – Sci) had altered testicular size and Sertoli cell function, cells which nurture the developing sperm cells. Not only that, rodents exposed to endocrine disruptors during critical gestational windows for genital development saw irreparable alterations to penis length, anogenital distance, and testicular weight.

As I mentioned earlier, this study was fairly similar to the study that Sci blogged–the methodology was slightly different, and since there was some question regarding methodology in the comments on that post, I figure we’d go into the methodology a bit here. In this study, eligible patients were recruited from a urology clinic specializing in reproductive medicine. Patients evaluated for infertility that were over the age of 18 were eligible for the study, and a fertile control group was put together with a group of men that had a prior history of paternity. In order to measure their genitals, the men had to get into a frog-legged position. Oh yes, there are pictures:

(Note to self: Do not read papers on anogenital distance and male fertility while sitting in a busy airport such as Logan. You will unknowingly stumble upon said diagram while surrounded by people.)

How does one get ready for measurement anyway? Well first you lay on your back, and then touch the soles of your feet together, making sure to keep your feet 12 to 18 inches away from your butt. Oh, and you may want to get a Brazilian wax first. Someone is going to have to get all up in your business, and I’m sure they’d appreciate a clean work surface. Once ready for measuring, someone will take a pair of digital calipers to you, and measure from the back of the balls to the anus, which these researchers thought to be a more comfortable, reliable and reproducible measurement than measuring from the base of the penis (Though they don’t say what it’s MORE reliable than…A ruler? Bending over and spreading? – Sci). Penis length was taken as well, and testicular volume was estimated by one examiner (lucky man) who had the room at a balmy 78 to 80 degrees Farenheit, because…well….we all know what happens to the boys when its cold out.

(I use this photo every time I possibly get the chance-Sci)

All patients also had two semen analyses performed, and semen analyses were performed manually within an hour of collection. I’m going to assume that the semen samples were also OBTAINED manually, and not with a hands-free, semen-collecting robot (though they are becoming more popular! Coming soon to an artificial insemination clinic near you! – Sci).

The volume, density (millions of little swimmers per milliliter), and motility were recorded and multiplied to determine the total motile sperm count. Hormone assays were also processed for testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (all of these are hormones which influence fertility in both men and women- Sci). Finally, statistical analyses were performed, including adjustments for age, race, FSH and BMI.

Most of the men in the study were white males (64%), but even when the the results were broken down by race, the length o’ taint differences between fathers and infertile men remained stable, with infertile, childless men having a significantly shorter anogenital distance when compared to fathers. Infertile men also had shorter stretched penis lengths and total testicular volumes than fertile men. All genital measurements seem to be correlated to each other, but those in the know can’t stress enough: CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Semen volume was similar in both fertile and infertile men, but the sperm density, motility and total mobile sperm count were significantly lower for infertile men. In both the unadjusted and adjusted models, anogenital distance and testicular volume were significantly correlated with total motile sperm count and sperm density, and sperm destiny and total motile sperm count increased with an increase in anogenital distance. For every 1 cm increase in taint, add another 4.3 million little swimmers per milliliter and the total motile sperm count increases by 6 million. There wasn’t any significant correlation seen between penis length and sperm count, which goes back to my opening statement — PUT AWAY YOUR RULERS! Women will not judge your marriage and fatherhood potential on the length of your penis…instead, they will base it upon your intelligence, your wit, your dashing good looks….and the length of your taint.

Eisenberg, M., Hsieh, M., Walters, R., Krasnow, R., & Lipshultz, L. (2011). The Relationship between Anogenital Distance, Fatherhood, and Fertility in Adult Men PLoS ONE, 6 (5) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018973

• Proof that great writing can make a difference?  The government now proposes a rule change that would require consent for all tissue research, citing HeLa in proposed rule change.  A giant congratulations goes to Rebecca Skloot for making a difference through her INCREDIBLE writing in “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”.  If you haven’t read it, then run to the store immediately and buy a copy!
• Forget going all “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”.  Bad memories don’t have to last forever with some assistance from glucocorticoids.
• Christie Wilcox inspires Kevin Bonham to cover how some women are allergic to spunk
• The NY Times is now selling subscriptions through their iPhone app
• Storify wins the grand prize in the  2011 Knight-Batten Awards for Innovations in Journalism

The internet has been abuzz in the past week or so with the controversy surrounding Google+’s real name policy.  If you use a pseudonym on Google+, not only do you run the risk of having your Google+ profile deleted, but you also run the risk of your entire account being suspended, meaning goodbye Gmail, goodbye Google Docs, and any other Google services that you may need in your day-to-day life.  Members of our little science online community, such as Bug Girl, have already had their accounts pulled, not to mention all of the other great pseudonymous bloggers such as Sci and Dr. Isis who can’t sign up because of this policy.

Image via goodreads.com

My mind jumps back to reading The Berenstain Bears books as a child, and the cover of one which featured a painted sign with large red letters spelling: “No Girls Allowed”, only this time, the sign on the door of the Google+ clubhouse reads: “No Pseudonyms Allowed”.  By posting this sign on the door, Google+ is keeping out valuable voices in many communities.

Not being an employee of Google, I can only speculate as to the rationale behind this real name policy.  In some ways, I understand the desire to have people use their real names, if that desire stems from trying to stop people from impersonating someone else, or harassing someone via a false identity.  Maybe I wouldn’t be considering these reasons if I had not just watched the ABC Family movie “Cyberbully” (Yes, I watch ABC Family movies.  Don’t judge.).  There are those people who would use a veil of anonymity or pseudonymity to do harm to others.  But not everyone using a false name is a rabble-rouser, and there are plenty of valid reasons one would use a pseudonym, and would do so responsibly.  In fact, back in 2009, Janet Stemwedel came up with a whole list of reasons why people might want to blog under a pseudonym.

When I was a newbie on the blogging block 3 years ago, I debated the pseudonym issue myself.  I was in my first year of grad school, and I knew absolutely NOTHING about blogging, but was required to keep a blog for a week as my first grad school assignment for my Journalism on the Web course.  I liked blogging, and as you can tell, I decided to stick with it.  In making the jump from a nameless, makeshift iWeb blog to the Blogger-hosted blog of the present-name, a blog that I planned to have read by people other than my classmates, I had to ask myself long and hard if I wanted to use my real name.  I worried about whack jobs finding me, but more so, I worried about blogging harming any future career I might want.  Ultimately, since what I wanted to do was write, I decided I wanted credit for what I wrote on my blog, and chose to use my real name.

But what is a “real” name anyway?  Didn’t Juliet, through the genius of Shakespeare’s writing, ponder that same question?

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

Perhaps a better question is, how is Google determining what is a real name?  (I’m pretty sure Howdy Your-Friend, isn’t a real name, and yet said user has added me on Google+.)

“Personally, I think this state of affairs is ludicrous,” Jay Freeman, developer of the Cydia app store, wrote on Google+. “Google’s attempts to enforce what a name is don’t even stand up to the test of multiple cultures, much less the test of an online pseudonymous world.”

Freeman is right.  Google’s name-test is failing miserably, and the definition of what is “real” is different online than it is in the real, physical world.  Just because certain people online use a pseudonym doesn’t make them any less real.  Real name or pseudonym, Sci would still be Sci.  Isis would still be Isis.  I could’ve used a pseudonym, and I’d still be me.  Name has nothing to do with credibility, or trust.  I trust Sci, and Dr. Isis, PsiWaveFunction, and GrrlScientist, and all of the other great pseudonymous bloggers in the science community– they’re an integral part of this world that we have online, and whether they use their pseudonym, their real name, or “Captain Fancypants”, they’d still be themselves.  And the point that Google seems to be missing, is that they all have every right to protect themselves and their identity, for whatever reasons that they have, and shouldn’t be kept out of the clubhouse for doing so.

For more on the issue, check out the following posts:

• Neurotic Physiology, On the Issue of Pseudonymity
• Punctuated Equilibrium, Google’s gormless “no pseudonym” policy
• Convergence, Pseudonymity, Anonymity, and Accountability Online 
• Denim and Tweet, Concerning pseudonyms
• Bug Girl’s Blog, Does Google+ hate women?

• With the final return of the shuttle Atlantis, NASA’s Space Shuttle program is officially done.  The end of the shuttle program could spell a bumpy ride for biomedicine in space.
• It’s a citations kind of week.  Google Scholar citations and how to formally cite a blog post seemed to be big hits this week.
• How spotted hyenas mate reminds me of the good times I had writing about weird sex in the animal kingdom
• I’m going to kill Sci for getting “The Lion Sleeps tonight” in my head with her post on lions’ nocturnal snacking.  Ed also covered this topic.  Ed is safe.  He did not get “wimoweh” stuck in my head.

The 3QD Science Prize winners were announced this morning, and I’m so happy that a post by my dear friend SciCurious has been selected as Top Quark by Lisa Randall!  CONGRATS SCI!

The winners are:

1.  Top Quark, $1000: SciCurious, Serotonin and Sexual Preference: Is It Really That Simple?
2.  Strange Quark, $300: Anne Jefferson, Levees and the Illusion of Flood Control
3.  Charm Quark, $100: Sean Carroll, The Fine Structure Constant is Probably Constant
3.  Charm Quark, $100: Ethan Siegel, Where Is Everybody?

You can read what Lisa Randall has to say about her selections here, as well as her take on the service that science blogging provides and how blogging differs from traditional science journalism.  Congrats to all the winners!