Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Worst Jobs in Science: Year Three 220

Posted by Zonk from the unloved-lab-rats dept.
mmoyer writes "Popular Science just published their annual rankings of the worst jobs in science. Highlights of this year's list include a human lab rat, orangutan pee collector, and, surprisingly, a NASA ballerina. Think your science job belongs on the list? You can nominate your job as well. Slashdot also covered the worst jobs in science in 2004 and in 2003."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Worst Jobs in Science: Year Three More

Worst Jobs in Science: Year Three

Comments Filter:

  • Worst Science Job, EVER (Score:5, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:43PM (#13898609) Homepage Journal

    6. Volcanologist When the earth heats up, they head in

    Volcanologist? Can't take the heat, get out of the crater? Sounds like a dream job, just get my Indiana Jones get-up on and grow a good 5 o'clock shadow and the babes will be swarming like deerflies! w00. "Danger is my middle name. Unfortunately my first name is Melvin and my last name is Blortman."

    3. Kansas Biology Teacher On the front lines of science's devolution

    *snort* This has initiated so many flame-wars on USENET lately, yeah, that's gotta suck having to face extremists and dum-dum board members. The irony is 'Intelligent Design' is an Evolution of Creationism :)

    2. Manure Inspector The smell is just the start of the nastiness

    Reminds me of Farley Mowat in his cabin in Never Cry Wolf. All those wolf turds and then the water came in...

    1. Human Lab Rat Must read slashdot for research lab. aaiiiieeeee!!!

    • "3. Kansas Biology Teacher On the front lines of science's devolution

      *snort* This has initiated so many flame-wars on USENET lately, yeah, that's gotta suck having to face extremists and dum-dum board members. The irony is 'Intelligent Design' is an Evolution of Creationism :)"

      What ever happened to the good ol' days when a teacher was apethic towards their job? They just went in, did whatever the board told 'em to, and used the Nuremberg defence to ease any ethical issues. Or was that prozac?

      I want to ret
      • 3. Kansas Biology Teacher On the front lines of science's devolution...
        This could be a great job for the right person. I had a couple science teachers who were really, really, really articulate, and I think they would have done well in this enviornment- they would have seen it as a challenge.
        Backwards places nees the best teachers sometimes- because the people there have the most learning to do....
        • On that note, how easy would it be to score 100% on the Intelligent Design tests?

          Question 1: Identify and describe the method in which humans obtained stereoscopic sight.

          a) With binoculars.
          b) God, the designer himself.
          c) Crazy Theory of Evolution.
          d) All of the above.

          Question 2: Identify and describe the method in which humans obtained opposable thumbs.

          a) Double jointed.
          b) God, the designer himself.
          c) Crazy Theory of Evolution.
          d) None of the above.

    • Re:Worst Science Job, EVER (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      whoah, people still talk on usenet?

      here i thought it was all binaries!

  • How About Avian Sex Partner? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by conJunk ( 779958 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:43PM (#13898611)

    Ha! Great story.

    A few years back, I knew a fellow (he had the unfortunate name of Willie Williams) who'd been involved in the re-introduction of pergrine falcons to the canyon lands of south texas [peregrinefund.org]. The problem was that the birds wouldn't breed in captivity. The answer: artificial insemination.

    This dude's job was to collect the sperm from the male falcons. He'd go in to their enclosures wearing a special hat [si.edu] with a very-anatomically-correct model of a female falcon on it.

  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by jandrese ( 485 ) * <kensama@vt.edu> on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:43PM (#13898613) Homepage Journal
    Have you watched the NASA ballerina video yet? It's hot.

    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)

      by anandpur ( 303114 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:49PM (#13898666)
      NASA Ballerina link if www.popsci.com give up

      http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mpeg/115084mai n_ballerina.mpeg [nasa.gov]
    • Before you look it up, you should know it shows a half naked woman writhing around what looks like an enormous yellow penis. You couldn't make it up. But what the heck? The researcher has just got more publicity than he probably ever imagined. And his next funding offer might come from highly unexpected sources - the sort of people who need huge server farms and wide pipes to, ah, service their clients.

    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)

      by frank_adrian314159 ( 469671 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:11PM (#13898838) Homepage
      It's hot.

      Yeah! And the ballerina ain't bad, either!

    • Re:Wow (Score:3, Funny)

      by Overzeetop ( 214511 )
      So, if she would have encircled the "sensor" with her arms and moved them from the base to the tip, would it have jerked back and forth rapidly? Aside from the obvious imagry, I'm guessing the result would have been about what we expect. It was clearly a bit "confused" and the motions erratic (two "r"s and an "a", keep your mind out of the gutter) is serveral areas where the dancer was close to multiple sensor areas.

      It is quite difficult to believe that the scientist didn't manage to see the problem with t
    • What is that, the dance of the friendly phallus? It moves so expressively!

    • Re:Wow (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I have to object. That was most certainly not ballet. It was modern dance. Someone at Popular Science needs to spend 2 seconds doing some research!

  • can you hear me now? YES!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by krelyk ( 909912 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:45PM (#13898623)
    I nominate this dude for the worst job in the world - the guy that replies 'yes' to verizon's (tm) 'can you hear me now?'
    movie url -
    http://www.compfused.com/directlink/950 [compfused.com]

  • Question for biologists... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LeonGeeste ( 917243 ) * on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:46PM (#13898638) Journal
    (would have said evolutionists there, but that would have started a tangential flame war).

    This is a quote from the "Kansas Biology Teacher" article:

    "At the heart of ID is the idea that certain elements of the natural world--the human eye, say--are "irreducibly complex" and have not and cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Therefore, IDers say, they must be the work of an intelligent designer (that is, God).

    The problem for teachers is that ID can't be tested using the scientific method, the system of making, testing and retesting hypotheses that is the bedrock of science."

    Now, if someone tells you that the eye cannot be explained through evolutionary mechanisms, do you respond that, well, ID can't be tested through the scientific method, so you're wrong? Because that's exactly what this article makes it sound like. If there's a response to the argument that the eye could not have arisen through the incremental changes posited by evolutionary theory, this article sure doesn't give it.

    Is there a response? What incremental, random changes produced an eye such that each step conferred an evolutionary advantage? Or did it happen all at once? Can scientists reconstruct the formation for an eye through an accidental interference with the DNA? And, most importantly, does even asking these questions imply that I'm an anti-science ignorant hick?

    • Re:Question for biologists... (Score:5, Informative)

      by bowronch ( 56911 ) <slashdot@bowron.us> on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:51PM (#13898682) Homepage Journal
      From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_0 11_01.html [pbs.org]

      Evolution of the Eye:

      When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

      If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

      Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

      Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

      Bilogists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

      Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

      Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

      In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

      • Mod mistake here! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Karma_fucker_sucker ( 898393 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:05PM (#13898803)
        I read the parent three times and I can't fathom why it was mod'ed as "Troll". I found it to be quite informative and helpful for me when I have to deal with the ID folks.

        This country (US) is drifting more and more away from science and more towards superstition (It's not only the ID folks, there's other equally unscientific view too) and magical thinking. We're headed for trouble economically, culturally, and politically if we don't stop this nonsense.

        • Indeed. To mark the OP a troll is to suggest the question isn't worth asking. It is, it's a valid quesiton, and it turns out science has a good answer, a much better one than creationism has. We on the science side of the debate won't win in people's hearts and mind if we just mark people trolls and refuse to respond to them.
          • Carl Sagan's responses "Demon Haunted World" [amazon.com]

            In that book, folks would ask him about "healing crystals" and many other things both religious and "New Age". His response was something to the affect of "...there's no data that supports that belief." I found that response to be respectful to the person asking and at the same time putting forth that idea that maybe they should question their own beliefs. Of course, there's always going to be people who are completely happy relying on faith. I have no problem wi

        • Re:Mod mistake here! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ChuckleBug ( 5201 ) *
          I read the parent three times and I can't fathom why it was mod'ed as "Troll". I found it to be quite informative and helpful for me when I have to deal with the ID folks.

          There are creationists here who I think go looking for articles that criticize creationism/ID and rate them Troll. A while back, I wrote a testy but not uninformative article that got the same treatment:

          http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70547&cid=6407 629 [slashdot.org]

          I admit I was kind of pissy when I wrote it, but it wasn't a troll. It had good
      • Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.

        I'd be careful with this point, because it is not as simple as it first sounds. A change should, but does not have to, confer an advantage. It could be a neutral move, with no selection for or against it. However, these neutral moves could result in the availability of new potential advantages. So, when arguing the point, it is not the thinner openings were greater than the larger openings, but rather they were at least as efficient for
      • Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.

        This is a common misconception about evolution. The only thing "necessary" is for the organism displaying the trait to reproduce. Nothing else. The trait can confer absolutely no advantage, and even cause disadvantage, as long as enough organisms with the genes for that trait reproduce. The trait need not even be expressed, as long as a gene that creates it is passed on. (Big example: recessive genes.)

        So, to recap, every change did no

      • Re:Question for biologists... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by elmartinos ( 228710 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @05:15PM (#13899952) Homepage
        Here [blogspot.com] I present you The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

        Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

        (Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

        Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

        (Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

        Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

        Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your
        kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

        Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

        Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

        Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

        Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this
        sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

        Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

        Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical
        evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
    • Its not falsifiable, you can never prove it wrong, its faith. You cant PROVE it either.

      The fact that you cannot prove something, does not make another thing you cannot prove true.

      Evolution deals more in generalities, it is postulated that humans evolved through a series of events because genetics and bones etc... help us come to that conclusion.

      How evolution created the eye, or even a cell for that matter, is still a part of the mystery, and if someone could make an example cell from parts then that would

    • Re:Question for biologists... (Score:5, Informative)

      by idlake ( 850372 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:11PM (#13898843)
      Is there a response? What incremental, random changes produced an eye such that each step conferred an evolutionary advantage?

      It's well understood; the progression is roughly: light sensitive cell, opaque pigment in back, retreat into concavity, formation of pinhole camera, transparent covering, fixed lens, adaptable lens. Each of those has distinct and individual evolutionary advantages, sometimes related to improved predator evasion and sometimes merely related to improved protection of the existing structure. It seems to have happened several times in evolution, so it's not even anything unusual; if we ever encounter aliens, they probably have eyes, too.

      The problem for teachers is that ID can't be tested using the scientific method, the system of making, testing and retesting hypotheses that is the bedrock of science.

      That's false. ID can be tested (in the same way astronomy can be), and the answer is: there is not a shred of evidence to support ID. Every single test of evolution has come down on the side of evolution (mutation and selection) and against intelligent design (interference of an intelligent agent in the development of different life forms on earth). ID has the form of a scientific theory, but it happens to be an incorrect scientific theory according to overwhelming evidence.
      • ID can be tested (in the same way astronomy can be)

        Huh? Telescopes searching for God? Please explain what you mean.

      • That's false. ID can be tested (in the same way astronomy can be)...

        Really? OK. Give me the definition of intelligence upon which you could build such tests. And, remember, your community of researchers all must agree on this defition.

        I mean, if you're going to test the predictions of ID, you have to know the nature of intelligence, right?

        And, I haven't even asked about "Design" yet...
        • I mean, if you're going to test the predictions of ID, you have to know the nature of intelligence, right?

          No, you don't always need a precise definition in order to demonstrate that something is not intelligent. We don't have any trouble, for example, agreeing that a piece of rock salt isn't intelligent. You need precise definitions only in the borderline cases, but the mechanisms that evidently produce biological diversity are so far removed from intelligence that there is no question.
          • But in this case you do need a precise definition. You need a testable defition. If we are to posit an intelligent creator we must know what we are positing. Otherwise the assertion os meaningless, and any subsequent assertions based on it are meaningless. (And thus not testable.)

            Look, by saying "I know it's wrong" you're playing right into the hands of ID proponents. You're falling for their game. Don't.
    • Even if there isn't a response right now, it doesn't mean there won't be as right from the beginning there were a lot of unanswered question regarding evolution. Many of them have been answered, and many questions will yet be answered. In reality, evolution is a theory in name only. Not one piece of evidence has come up to refute evolution. Evolution is an important principle of biological science.

      On the other hand, all the evidence has refuted creationism. Simply removing the word "god" and then trying to

  • Hold on a second... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Pichu0102 ( 916292 ) <pichu0102@gmail.com> on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:47PM (#13898644) Homepage Journal
    A NASA ballerina? Looks like our tax dollars are going to work in the right places!

  • Here's one. (Score:2, Funny)

    by scholzie ( 765494 )
    I'm an Intel Engineer. How's that?

  • Misquote me thinks (Score:5, Funny)

    by It doesn't come easy ( 695416 ) * on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:57PM (#13898731) Journal
    1. Human Lab Rat [...] Dudes, I was in a double-blind Viagra trial! And I got paid!

    I would have thought the emphasis would have been on laid ...
    • "I would have thought the emphasis would have been on laid ..."

      No, no, it was a double-blind study... Everyone knows that it's not getting laid that makes you go blind.

      I myself participated in the follow-up, which was a double-hairy palm study.

  • i am a NASA ballerina! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28, 2005 @02:59PM (#13898743)
    and i find my placement in this poll to be very insulting. it is a job which is rewarding on MANY LEVELS, both personal and professional!
  • I'd hate to be the guy who gets bitten by mosquitos for some photo or research purposes.


    • Like this [acs.org] person?

    • it's not so bad. Living right by the everglades natl park in south florida i can tell you if you get bit by enough of them your body stops responding by making those little red itchy bumps.

      Earlier this year the mosquito season started early and they didnt have the budget to begin spraying so they just let people tough it out until it got enough press to actually have to take action. I was getting bit three times a day just on the way to the car which is about 7 ft from my front door to the car space in fron
    • for some photo or research purposes.

      You don't need the human victims to take pictures like this [macro-photo.org]
  • <Troll>
    Q: Name the worst jobs in science ?
    Little Bill: Steve Jobs ?!
    </Troll>

  • What no "Grad Student?" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by forand ( 530402 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:12PM (#13898850) Homepage
    Almost every one of the top 10 has one thing in common, if there is an even crappier aspect of the job it is being done by the grad student on the project!

    I just want recognition for something! I will have to be happy with getting my Phd if I can't get on the crappiest job list.

  • true story (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nanojath ( 265940 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:18PM (#13898893) Homepage Journal
    every time they run this thing, it takes me back to this crap job I had years ago entering data from documentation in huge class action court cases into searchable databases for teams of attorneys. Lab results from animal fertility experiments crossed my desk and I must have looked at the phrase a dozen times before it occured to me what it meant to extract semen from dogs via "digital manipulation."

  • I spent a full year as a PhD student doing basically nothing but grinding up and heating mixtures of various metal oxide powders to make fuel cell components. That has got to be the most boring job ever. The lab didn't even have a window to look out of.

  • When in college, I worked in a lab analyzing waste water produced by local industry. part of the job involved collection of samples. Some of the man-holes were nice (like at the brand-new CD ROM manufacturing plant.) Others..... One was at a plant that made pet food. The waste from that process was mixed with the normal sewage one would find coming out of a building with lots of humans. Need I say more?
    • One collection location had raw sewage? Bah.
      I had a job collecting samples from the inflows of sewage treatment plants. Drive around to six obsolete, decrepit plants, swapping out the collectors in the automated samplers (How many will have overflowed today?) Take them all back to the shiny new plant that will get all the sewage after you're done. Mix the samples in exacting proportions, and decant into various containers. (This will involve spilling; skin contact considered very bad) Pack them up in a

  • Continental Drift? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mr100percent ( 57156 ) * on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:42PM (#13899067) Homepage Journal
    First, a history lesson. In 1999 a group of religious fundamentalists won election to the Kansas State Board of Education and tried to introduce creationism into the state's classrooms. They wanted to delete references to radiocarbon dating, continental drift and the fossil record from the education standards. In 2001 more-temperate forces prevailed in elections, but the anti-evolutionists garnered a 6-4 majority again last November.

    Radiocarbon dating and fossils, I suppose they thought it contradicted the bible. Continental Drift? Who would dispute that?

    • Re:Continental Drift? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Control Group ( 105494 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:56PM (#13899192) Homepage
      Anybody who wants to cling to a young earth [creationists.org].

      Continental drift, after all, presupposes a time line about four orders of magnitude greater than that of young earth "theory." Hence, if you believe continental drift, you have a very hard time simultaneously buying into young earth.

    • Re:Continental Drift? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Quaoar ( 614366 )
      It's for same reason that they didn't like a solar system model that was heliocentric: The Earth is described in the Bible as being completely static and unchanging. Plate tectonics kinda go against that...
      • The Earth is described in the Bible as being completely static and unchanging. Plate tectonics kinda go against that...

        Tides go against that too. I guess there's limits to what they can deny? Or perhaps that one of gods miracles, pushing the unbeliever into the sea?

    • Continental Drift? Who would dispute that?

      People that live here [usgs.gov].

    • To be fair, I don't think any of us have been sitting around and observed any continents drift, so that puts in the same ballpark as the other two. And even if we were witness to events like earthquakes, we'd only suspect something like continental drift has occured because scientists have told us what's going on.

      Now, I'm playing devil's advocate here, I'm a science nerd and would really like all these IDers to just shut the hell up. But anywho, to their point, I also have never seen a virus, nor Pluto,

      • The thing is, you're not supposed to just take the scientists at their word. Everything is supposed to be backed up by evidence and reason, and open to challenge from new evidence. Religious faith: not so much.

  • Probably not a ballerina (Score:4, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:44PM (#13899096) Homepage
    Ballerina? She moves more like a modern dancer.

    Actually, that's not a bad dance job. Pay, benefits, reasonable hours. Ask any working dancer. It's a tough life, and you burn out young. At the higher levels, the injury rate is very high. New York City Ballet used to have the highest workmens's compensation premium in the state.

    The "robot touch avoidance" demo has been done before, several times, both with mechanical switches and a short-range microwave system. The IR distance measurement system came from a Stanford project in the 1970s.

  • Peh, this is the REAL worst science job! (Score:4, Funny)

    by lasmith05 ( 578697 ) on Friday October 28, 2005 @03:48PM (#13899131) Homepage
    Animal Sperm Collector: http://www.talkingcock.com/html/article.php?sid=22 5 [talkingcock.com] Choice Quote: "I never thought I'd be giving an orangutan a hand job every morning," he said somewhat ruefully. "And Ah Meng is the worst. He expects to be kissed first."
  • The number of cattle with windows into their stomachs [vpscenter.com] is, surprisingly, non-zero. And what good is a cow with a view if you don't do this [vpscenter.com] on a regular basis?
  • From number 7, Semen washer:
    "The hardest part is explaining it to friends," Schillinger says. "But we do have stories." Like what? "Like the donor who was in the room for the longest time. We had a big discussion about who was going to check on him. Turns out he thought he had to fill up the entire specimen cup."

    Oh I want him to father my kids!!!!!!

  • I know of someone who worked at a marine-mammal research facility. One of his tasks was to obtain semen samples from the male dolphins. (I won't go into the gory details).

    As it turns out, dolphins are quick learners, and he quickly became *very* popular with the male dolphins. Any time he would show up at the dolphin tanks, the dolphins would immediately begin splashing around and chattering with excitement!

    So next time you go to Sea World and take in a dolphin show, don't assume that the dolphins are pe

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close