New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Boobs at Work: Surfing Porn on the Public's Time

A humorous review of unacceptable ways to waste time on the job

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The Internet is indeed a wonder of our age. Why, just last night, while watching the DVD of Inherit the Wind (it's Darwin's bicentennial birthday week as I write), I was able to simultaskically discover that Fredric March and Florence Eldridge, who play Matthew and Sarah Brady, were married in real life and often performed together in movies and on stage. (Inherit the Wind, by the way, is actually a bombastically bad movie. But it's fun.) My research was over before Matthew, a character based on William Jennings Bryan, could finish one of his long-winded speeches.

Of course, easy access to such tantalizing data has the potential for misuse. Which clearly was the case at the National Science Foundation (NSF), where an employee spent a significant amount of time at work perusing pornography. At least that's the official report if he claimed he was investigating grant applications from researchers investigating human reproduction, well, it didn't fly.

The incident, and some other porn-related surfing by a handful of other NSF employees, was revealed in the foundation's semiannual report issued by its inspector general. The primary porn culprit lost his job based on the misuse of time and resources that was estimated to have wasted some $58,000. And the foundation installed filters, just as countless other employers in the U.S. have done when faced with exactly this same kind of abuse of company resources. NSF employees looking for dirty pictures will henceforth have to be content with medical journals.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


With the audit having been published, the NSF got back to work supporting and promoting scientific research. That is until Iowa senator Charles Grassley noticed the foundation's report. The waste wasn't just playing computer solitaire or Freecell, or instant-messaging friends or searching the Internet for movie trivia. This was porn.

At first, Grassley was mildly intrigued. Perhaps he gently caressed the hard copy of the internal audit, its creamy white pages glistening under the gentle light of a desk lamp. As the senator read about a government-funded employee viewing lascivious images in the workplace, his heart must have pounded. When he reached the mention of the $58,000, his pulse no doubt shot up and he might have softly moaned. Then he and the NSF semiannual report became one. And his outrage exploded like a volcano that could no longer contain the roiling molten lava within. "The semiannual report," Grassley said in a press release, "raises real questions about how the National Science Foundation manages its resources, and Congress ought to demand a full accounting before it gives the agency another $3 billion in the stimulus bill."

Grassley then joined with Senators Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Richard Shelby of Alabama to share their indignation at the waste of the taxpayers' money. (Again, the porn addict was already gone, despite the fact that a federally funded worker who loses only $58,000 in this economy should probably be nominated for employee of the month.) The three senators introduced an amendment to the roughly $800-billion stimulus bill that would freeze $3 million in operating funds for the NSF unless the foundation took further steps to ensure that no pornography ever sullied its computer screens again.

Much of this information came to me from a source at the Senate Finance Committee, of which Grassley is the ranking member. I made repeated requests of the source to assure me that the senatorial threats against the NSF would not cost any scientists their funding. The answers were inconclusive and then stopped altogether. While this tempest in a D-cup made news, the former NSF employee was joined by 598,000 other Americans who lost their jobs in January.

Meanwhile the senators, who dithered for weeks over the stimulus bill, still have in their company their esteemed Louisiana colleague David Vitter, a known client of an infamous Washington brothel. Vitter who faces an election challenge from a porn star named Stormy Daniels once tried to waste $100,000 in a federal funding earmark for the Louisiana Family Forum. That organization campaigns against the teaching of evolution. So that in the future we can have new and better versions of Inherit the Wind.

Steve Mirsky was the winner of a Twist contest in 1962, for which he received three crayons and three pieces of construction paper. It remains his most prestigious award.

More by Steve Mirsky
Scientific American Magazine Vol 300 Issue 4This article was published with the title “Boobs at Work: Surfing Porn on the Public's Time” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 300 No. 4 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican042009-2CKY7oIkJPnhKDCLdmsatF

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe