Neither of the Nobel laureates had ever worn a bra. The pressure was on. The Harvard audience expected precision, accuracy, fun. This was, after all, the Ig-Nobel Prizes.

With a little effort, economist Paul Krugman and novelist Orhan Pahmuk managed to master the winning invention — a bra that could be used in emergencies as two face masks. US Patent #7255627 was validated and another Ig-Nobel Prize ceremony came to a raucous conclusion.

Movies tell us “the truth” about scientists. They are serious, somber, can’t take a joke. Driven by data, they are no fun at parties. Or so the stereotypes said — until the Ig-Nobels.

Begun in 1991, the annual Ig-Nobel ceremony is held shortly before those other Nobels are announced in Stockholm. But despite honoring the same fields — Physics, Chemistry, Peace, etc. — the Ig-Nobels are to the Nobels as anti-matter is to matter.

One of the first Ig-Nobels went to Vice-President Dan Quayle “for demonstrating better than anyone else the need for science education.” The first Ig-Nobel Peace Prize went to Edward Teller, inventor of the H-bomb, “for his lifelong efforts to change the meaning of peace as we know it.”

The Ig-Nobels grew out of the Journal of Irreproducible Results. Founded in 1955 by two Israeli scientists, the monthly journal published mock studies — “Reading Education for Zoo Animals: A Critical Need,” and “Weekend Scientist: Let’s Make a Thermonuclear Device!” Each article included bogus data, crazy footnotes, and baffling academese.

The JIR’s most notorious article, “National Geographic: The Doomsday Machine,” warned that the U.S. would sink into the sea under the weight of old National Geographics. A rebuttal dismissed the apocalypse, calculating that even if the magazines were piled up coast to coast, America would only sink 100 feet. Coastal cities would flood “saving vast amounts of urban renewal funds.”

In 1994, the JIR gave way to the AIR, the Annals of Improbable Research. “Improbable research is research that makes people laugh and then think,” says journal editor Mark Abrahams. “We collect improbable research. real research, about anything and everything, from everywhere. Research that’s maybe good or bad, important or trivial, valuable or worthless.”

So in a world of Pizzagate and Post-Truth, who’s to decide what’s improbable? The AIR’s board — “fifty-odd eminent scientists, doctors, etc. from around the world, including several Nobel Prize winners and a convicted felon” — that’s who.

Unilke JIR, the Annals features genuine research notable only for its “duh!” factor. Guess what? Studies show that “People Who Know How to Read are Best at Recognizing Letters.” And “People With Dementia May Make More Driving Errors.” Remember, you heard it there first.

Other articles, written by real scientists with real Ph.D.s, are more improbable. “The Dead Grandmother Exam Syndrome” explores the tendency of students’ grandmothers to die just before a crucial exam. And then there’s: “Assessing Gluteal Hardness in Uniformed Security Guards,” “Canine Reactions to the Mona Lisa,” “Infectious Diseases in Bricks,” “Scheduled Earthquakes,” “The Effects of Peanut Butter on the Rotation of the Earth,” and the ever-popular “How to Make a Scientific Lecture Unbearable.” These will be on the test.

If you can do the math, it all adds up to zaniness on an exponential scale. But the nerd-based weirdness takes the stage each September when Harvard’s Sanders Theater hosts the Ig-Nobels. Eager winners from around the world show up in black tie, gowns, or frat-boy headgear. Speeches ramble. Some scientists prove as funny in person as in print. Some don’t.

Along with awards, each ceremony has its 24/7 Lecture featuring a scientist explaining his/her work, first in 24 seconds, then in seven words. In 2017, a Harvard economist summed up uncertainty in the markets thusly: “uncertainty is the only sure thing — perhaps.”

The Ig-Nobels now make headlines, especially when they lampoon everyday improbables. In 2002, the Ig-Nobel for Economics went to executives at Enron for “adapting the mathematical concept of imaginary numbers for use in the business world.” And what journalist can resist the latest scientific study — how doctors performing colonoscopies can “minimize the chance that their patients will explode.“

“Science,” said physicist Richard Feynman, “is what we have learned about to keep from fooling ourselves.” But in a world of Post-Truth, the Ig-Nobels prove that fooling ourselves is the safest path to sanity.

SCIENCE FARCES ON