The House Education Committee on Education and the Workforce is now collaborating with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to identify and eliminate what they refer to as “waste” and “fraud” in higher education funding. The academic landscape in the United States is reportedly marred by excessive spending and research efforts that do not appear to justify their financial costs, especially those funded by taxpayer dollars. In an effort to highlight these concerns, Campus Reform has compiled a list of ten unusual and costly research projects undertaken by various colleges and universities that exemplify the critique of wasteful spending.
Among the most eyebrow-raising studies is a $465,339 project at Reed College in Oregon, where researchers sought to establish a token-based economy to teach pigeons how to gamble using slot machines. This inquiry into animal behavior raises questions about the relevance and necessity of such spending. Similarly, Emory University received $592,527 to investigate why chimpanzees throw feces, suggesting that this behavior might indicate signs of intelligence in the animals. Another example includes a study at the Oregon Health & Science University, which received $5 million to explore the effect of alcohol on finches’ singing abilities, revealing a bizarre intersection between avian behavior and human consumables.
In more surprising projects, researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign examined the impact of cocaine on honeybees and found that the drug increased their inclination to exhibit dancing behavior. The National Science Foundation funded an astonishing $1.3 million to create tiny treadmills to analyze shrimp mobility when impaired by sickness. Meanwhile, a federal grant of $500,000 was allocated to a University of California, Irvine project aimed at determining if taking selfies could enhance individuals’ happiness. These examples provide a glimpse into research that seemingly lacks significant societal impact and prompts scrutiny over fiscal responsibility.
Several other funded projects raise eyebrows even further. A study at the University of Connecticut, which received $30,000 from the National Endowment for the Humanities, investigated a “highly endangered” secret language used by Parisian butchers, while at Cornell University, a project costing $1 million sought to rank the pain levels of bee stings on various parts of the body, ultimately leading to the discovery that stings in sensitive areas, such as the nostrils and genitals, were the most painful. Such typologies of projects question the academic merit and public value of funded studies, revealing a potential disconnect from pressing social issues.
Another peculiarity includes a study funded with $3.6 million to investigate what might make goldfish feel “sexy,” conducted at Bowdoin College. The researchers discovered that introducing sex steroids to male goldfish led to altered social behaviors involving proximity to female goldfish. Additionally, the National Cancer Institute allocated nearly $7 million to develop a so-called “AI toilet” at Stanford University capable of analyzing human waste and identifying unique biological markers referred to as “analprints.” Such ventures highlight the range of unconventional research directions some federally supported studies take.
The ongoing collaboration between the House Education Committee and DOGE is significant not only due to its attempt to address wasteful expenditure in higher education but also because it reflects growing concerns regarding the sustainability of federal funding in academia. With the US national debt reported at $35.97 trillion, financial accountability in research funding is more pressing than ever. Leaders like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who guide DOGE, have an opportunity to uncover and assess these expenses under scrutiny, particularly those projects that may perpetuate ideological biases rather than contribute to actionable societal change.
As the current fiscal landscape continues to evolve, these investigations will likely spark debates about the proper allocation of taxpayer funds in higher education. The tenor of these discussions may lead to calls for reform in funding processes, with the hope of steering resources towards research endeavors that yield meaningful insights and contribute positively to society. This scrutiny and potential policy adjustment could not only curtail obscure spending habits within educational institutions but might also invigorate research agendas with genuine societal value.