Getting Freaky With the Scientists

In a recent study by Environmental Health Perspectives, a monthly science journal, it was found that the sperm of urban males in Minneapolis, Los Angeles and New York are of higher quality than sperm from men in rural Missouri.

Yes, someone actually approved funding for this.

I'd like to get funding for a study on the differences between Canadian television news, which doesn't use scare tactics, and American television news, which does, and the effects each has on the people in their respective countries. I probably won't get funding for my project. Yet for some reason, having a creepy sperm contest will benefit our society in ways we could never have imagined.

The most disturbing line in the Minneapolis Star Tribune article I read was this one:

The study, on which a University of Minnesota researcher collaborated . . .

What does that mean? Is that a pleasant, family-friendly way of saying he donated sperm? Does donating sperm make you a scientist? And to think, accreditation was so close. I just had to buy some dirty magazines and a small tupperware measuring cup.

Here's another line from the article that made me a bit uneasy:

Dr. Bruce Redmon, an associate professor of medicine at the university, said the differences among the geographic areas were unexpected . . .

So they didn't do it because they suspected something was wrong? They just did the study because it sounded like fun? Someone just pulled this idea out of thin air?

Ewwwwwwwwwwww.

Since I'm already deep in a rut of wasting column space by quoting lines from newspaper articles, here's another unsettling quote:

They found that while the volume of semen was similar, its quality was higher from men in cities.

What do you mean volume? Does that mean what I think it means? Look fellas, I'm all for scientific research and such, but do you have to study that side of it? I mean, a little gets the job done, doesn't it? I've never impregnated a woman before (at least not that I know of), but I'm pretty sure the volume of it isn't much of an issue.

Scientists mainly rated the quality of the sperm, but the odd part is that none of them said what they considered to be "quality". Is it the percentage of knocked-up ladies? Percentage of pregnancies that result in twins or better? Color? Texture? How far one can project it? Was Peter North involved, and if so, does that skew the results? There are many questions that the article left unanswered.

And why Minnesota? What's the logic there? Perhaps there was an ego factor at play, and the University of Missouri-Columbia scientists were hoping that us urban Minnesota folk would have weak sperm. What a funny situation it must have been when they discovered the truth.

Doctor 1: Crap! Our sperm is even worse than Minnesota's sperm! We can't publish this study!

Doctor 2: I'm sorry, but we have no choice. We have to publish the results, otherwise our funding will be cut.

Doctor 1: But as Missouri men, it makes us look so . . . so . . . underqualified.

Doctor 2: Don't worry, doctor. With additional funding, I'm sure we'll be able to find at least one state with sperm worse than ours.

Doctor 1: I hope you're right. I hope you're right.

For all the guys who missed participating in this study, you may still get your chance. Have a look at this encouraging line from the end of the article:

Redmond said that sperm quality of rural Minnesota men has not been studied, but could be in the future if additional funds become available.

You hear that, rural Minnesota guys? With a little time and money, scientists could be assigning a power ranking to your sperm as well. Kind of like the power ranking the NFL assigns to their teams. If the study got an overabundance of funding, the scientists might even have enough left to print up personal trading cards with your power ranking and other sperm-related stats on the back.

Your wives and girlfriends could trade them.

While there's no surefire way to be included in the next part of the study, I'm sure it would be fine if everyone just sent the scientists a small sample in an envelope. Heck, it's worth a shot.

For those of you who don't want to be included in the study, a word of warning: the scientists never explained how they got the samples, or whether it was a voluntary procedure.

Lock your doors, people. Lock your doors.