Ever since there have been scientists, there have been those who are wildly successful, publishing one well-received paper after another, and those who are not. And since nearly the same time, there have been scholars arguing over what makes the difference.

What is it that turns one scientist into more of a Darwin and another into more of a dud?

After years of argument over the roles of factors like genius, sex and dumb luck, a new study shows that something entirely unexpected and considerably sudsier may be at play in determining the success or failure of scientists — beer.

According to the study, published in February in Oikos, a highly respected scientific journal, the more beer a scientist drinks, the less likely the scientist is to publish a paper or to have a paper cited by another researcher, a measure of a paper’s quality and importance.

Why didn’t they test dope-smokers, too?




  1. joaoPT says:

    I’ve heard about “Coffe-achievers”, never of “Beer-achievers”…(unless talking about pot bellies.)

  2. TheGlobalWarmer says:

    Bullshit. Beer is the most important of food groups.

  3. HillWilliam says:

    I had to quit drinking beer. I gave blood and it had a head on it.

  4. QB says:

    Here’s to alcohol! The cause of and answer to all of life’s problems

    -Homer Jay Simpson

  5. Ahh… There goes my scientific career…

  6. BubbaRay says:

    As long as the scientist is handing out the free beer to the backers / grant readers, it’s all good! 🙂

  7. billabong says:

    Hey guys Carl Sagan smoked pot and few can argue with his success.Billions and billions of joints.Beer makes me stupid and weed makes me think.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 11596 access attempts in the last 7 days.