Decency and public money. Congress has often objected to spending public money on projects that seem “indecent” or “in bad taste.” The arts are most often affected, but science can also be a target. Congress once refused to fund an experiment to study the effect of marijuana on sexual response. The journal Science reported:

Dr. Harris B. Rubin and his colleagues at the Southern Illinois Medical School proposed to exhibit pornographic films to people who had smoked marihuana and to measure the response with sensors attached to the penis.

Marihuana, sex, pornographic films—all in one package, priced at

$120,000. The senators smothered the hot potato with a ketchup of colorful oratory and mixed metaphors.

“I am firmly convinced we can do without this combination of red ink, ‘blue’

movies, and Acapulco ‘gold,’ ” Senator John McClellan of Arkansas opined in a persiflage of purple prose.

(a) The subjects were volunteers who gave properly informed consent. If you were a member of the review board, would you veto this experiment on grounds of “decency” or “good taste”?

(b) Suppose we concede that a free society should permit any legal experiment with volunteer subjects. It is a further step to say that any such experiment is entitled to government funding if the usual review procedure finds it scientifically worthwhile. If you were a member of Congress, would you ever refuse to pay for an experiment on grounds of “decency” or “good taste”?

Notes and Data Sources 141 AppendixLO1