Eureka! I've found my Reader's Digest...

In an effort to aide drug companies in staving off cures for diabetes, HIV and muffin tops, scientific funding has once again gone to the pseudo-sciences. You know, the ones that helped us determine men are from Mars and women are from Venus, and launched the careers of social pioneers like Dr. Phil.

This just in from the brain trust: women are more likely to lie about engaging in socially unacceptable behaviors (e.g. Cheating). Sure there's the old double-standard argument -- if a guy gets around he's a stud; if a woman gets around, she's a ho. For the sake of this entry, I'll spare you my diatribe regarding evolutionary biology's overwhelming examples against monogamy in nature, including human nature.

Instead, I'll ask why you didn't take the cue from Salt'n'Peppa back in the 90s? "If she wanna get freakin with someone on the weekend, it's none of yo business."

If we are destined to a life of funding less useful studies than curing pandemics, shouldn't we at least resolve ourselves to studying behaviors that have a direct impact on bettering the world? So women lie about cheating? Men have been doing it since time began.

Why doesn't funding go toward the study of the spread of infectious diseases, or why we're all so apt to accept so-called "culture wars" proposed by politicians. If this seems a little heavy, then why not studying human aversions to going green?

Simply put, scientific and behavioral research should start putting it's mouth where it's money is and tell me something worth hearing.