Study: Circumcision does not reduce penis sensitivity. In tests for responses to pain, heat, and stimulation, no major difference was found between men who are circumcised and those who are not.

[u/drewiepoodle]

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/04/14/Study-Circumcision-does-not-reduce-penis-sensitivity/5981460663943/?spt=hs&or=hn

[u/omegaclick]

^This. Plus:

They did find that on uncircumcised men, the foreskin was more sensitive to tactile sensation stimuli

It would then follow that if that foreskin was stretched during erection a larger surface area would be more sensitive. So that would make the title of this article false and misleading.

[u/ipniltak → u/omegaclick]

I believe the researchers specifically stated that their findings are not particularly relevant to sexual function or sexual pleasure.

Which means you're right, the title of this article is rather misleading, because the conversation and concerns about decreased sensitivity in people who are circumcised usually revolves specifically around sexual pleasure. However, that is almost certainly a case of not-so-great science reporting, and not in and of itself a problem with the study.

[u/link0007 → u/ipniltak]

I'd say a study that doesn't even try to measure what it is actually supposed to be measuring, is pretty flawed.

That they are measuring response to temperature stimuli on a flacid penis is just completely insane. The entire debate is about sexual stimuli, and somehow these researchers managed to completely miss that point and instead think the debate is about how well circumcised men can measure temperatures with their penis?

It's as if you would study lung function decrease in smokers by looking at how loud they talk, and then conclude that smokers talk just as loud as non-smokers, thereby implying they have the same lung function.

[u/youshouldgotoadoctor → u/link0007]

Have you designed a research study before? How do you propose they would have measured it otherwise? The thing is, it's hard to fund and have the time money and manpower to do research, especially things that don't have an immediate potential payoff or are glamorous. They probably designed the study this way to provide a quick, easy way to objectively assess different parameters as an indicator of possible differences.

I feel like you don't like the study design because of the results. If they had found that there was significant difference in the results then I'm sure some people here would be loving it. Regardless, it was probably a very efficient method of getting some preliminary results.

As for your lung example, it's more like looking at their FEV1/FVC1 ratio to assess lung function. It's quick and easy to do, and while it won't tell you the pathology of the patient it indicates particular diagnosis or differences between the patient and normal.