Let’s have a discussion about toy marketing

Last Christmas I was tasked with buying my young cousins (one boy, one girl) some stocking stuffer-esque presents to entertain them during the family get-together. I still feel very much in tune with my kid-self, and I was excited to browse through the toy aisles and consider what I want (er, would want if I was 8). Being the grad student that I am, I naturally procrastinated my one Christmas shopping task until almost too late, and ended up running to Target 30 minutes before they closed the night before the family gathering.

What I found as I drifted through the three aisles dedicated to children’s toys was appalling. I wanted to find a toy for girls that promoted either physical or intellectual activity and was not a toxic shade of pink or purple. I wanted to find a toy for boys that didn’t condone violence. Besides board or cardgames, I had literally zero options in the toy section. I considered school supplies and crafts, but realized that purchasing a tye-dye kit would make assumptions involving spills and mess that I couldn’t vouch for to the kids’ parents. So, I ended up buying gender-neutral gift cards so my cousins could choose for themselves how they wanted to spend the gift, and my aunts and uncles could oversee the purchases.

I left feeling both indignantly angry at the status quo of societal cues about gender norms to kids at such a young age, and disappointed in a market economy that perpetuates these cycles.

Having recently watched all the viral goldie blox ads, and remembering paper ads from when I was a kid for rock crystal growing kits or chemistry sets, I was so excited to see a change for the best in toy aisles. But, like many secluded academics who have to eventually leave their ivory towers to buy toys in the real world, I was disappointed in how toy companies will increase the gender gap and perpetuate horrible stereotypes in order to expand their market.

A couple weeks later, this article summed up my thoughts nicely: http://www.womenyoushouldknow.net/little-girl-1981-lego-ad-grown-shes-got-something-say/

“Children haven’t changed, but adults who market to them have… What do we have to lose, besides stereotypes?”

It’s nice to see some toymakers can actually be creative and socially-conscious  in their market-carving exploits. I hope they find the market amenable to their efforts (this one’s on the adults buying the toys, though).

http://www.policymic.com/articles/84197/a-very-different-type-of-barbie-hits-shelves-to-revolutionize-how-girls-think-about-their-body

Average Barbie
Image credit: Nickolay Lamm

 I’m not in a regular toy-buying position, but I feel like a major paradigm shift in (gender based) marketing strategies could not only enact social change but would be extremely well received. Why aren’t we seeing more of this? Why aren’t adults creating this demand? (I’m really tempted to end this with: FOR THE CHILDREN).

Advertisements

Crowdsourced protocols for science!

Crowdsourced protocols for science!

This is interestingly timed. We were recently talking about how we should keep a running tab of all the minor innovations that could make our lives easier at the bench or in managing multiple projects and learning how to balance benchwork with reading, analyzing, and learning. 

This company built bench tools — a free suite of lab utility apps that i’ll try out and report back on. 

Currently they’re running a kickstarter campaign to fund the crowd-sourcing portion of their protocol app–an effort to standardize and share updates or corrections to protocols. If properly executed I can see this saving loads of time and increasing for experiments reproducibility across labs. Could also increase discussions about which published protocols ACTUALLY work as advertised in their publication. Could result in an added level of scientist community oversight, in a positive and productive way. 

Click here to read one of the founder’s farewell to his academic post, and here to read his “hello, world of startups” kickstarter plea. 

Now, can someone please tackle the issue of a one-stop-shop digital lab notebook?!

I’m currently using a messy mix of apps including papers2, excel, various folders o.O, dropbox, notebook (circus ponies), and dayONE (a journaling app). I want to be able to keep track of what i’ve done on a daily basis, host protocols and papers, as well as notes on various subjects, and track experiments by type rather than chronology. I’d also like to easily synch figures or figure drafts into my notebook, and be able to easily link to larger data. And I want to be able to do all this without updating 5 separate things constantly. 

 

23andMe: my foray into personalized genomics

Just over a year ago the personalized genomics company 23andMe dropped the price of their genetics testing service to $99. My family and I decided to try their product after hearing a few stories of people who gained valuable health information as a result of the service. As an added bonus for my dad, a genealogy buff, the service includes ancestry tracing and an option to ‘share genomes’ with potential distant relatives.

23andMe takes a sample of your DNA (from spit) and analyzes a set of markers at thousands of locations across your genome called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Since this analysis uses a small plastic chip coated with probes to query these sites, this genome-wide genotyping analysis is called a “SNP-chip.” Basically it asks which of the letters that make up the genetic code, A, T, C, or G, occur at a particular spot in your DNA, and then repeats this question 32,000 times. SNPs are essentially little genetic flag posts. The presence of a certain SNP (an A at a site that usually carries a G) can indicate a predisposition for heart disease, or may be associated with curly hair.

We gathered around the table and spit into our little sample collection tubes, registered online, sent the samples off in the mail, and waited.

Two of us opted in to their ‘contribution to research’ and began filling in prescription histories, general health background information, and answering questions such as whether or not our mother smoked while pregnant with us. Two of us opted to not share any further information at this time.

These answers, along with our self-reported medical history and drug responsiveness are entered into the 23andMe data crunchers to be processed in studies called Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS). GWAS studies look for correlations between SNPs and a particular trait such as responsiveness to a drug, ability to curl your tongue or wiggle your ears, or the likelihood of developing breast cancer.

Within one to two months of sending our samples in, our data was processed and uploaded, and we could read through a carefully curated list of genetic risks, carrier status (diseases we could potentially pass on to our children), fun traits, and ancestry information.

The test is well worth the $99 just for the ancestry and fun trait information. For those who know what they’re doing with the raw SNP data, these files are also made available. The selling point, though, was the genetic risk and carrier status information. I have a fairly complete medical history from almost all of my immediate relatives going back at least two generations, so I had a pretty solid idea for what to expect for the most part, but having a gene-based confirmation of those assumptions was massively relieving. Further, I identified a trait or two which I deemed actionable, and I feel confident that the measures I’m taking post 23andMe revelation are making me healthier and happier.

It’s important to keep three things in mind, though, when going through this genetic data.
1. There are always error rates associated with these tests. If I were to send in my spit four more times I may get slightly different genotypes for any given SNP in each of those samples.
2. This is a SNP-Chip and associated GWAS studies, not sequencing and molecular mechanism. SNPs are often simply associated with functional regions of genetic code, and may not actually indicate an error in a functional gene. And GWAS studies are correlations, and don’t always indicate causation. Take these annotations with a grain of salt. An exact DNA sequence for your entire genome would be far more informative, and is probably on the way. Even so, for most of these disease correlations, vague association/correlation is as good as it gets at this point in the game.
3. These are DNA samples from your spit. No amount of habit changing or exercise will change these results, but they’re also not written in stone. You have the same DNA in every one of your cells, but a skin cell is different from a liver cell or a brain cell. There are many layers of regulation governing which genes get turned on when and where. Just because you have a gene associated with a predisposition to high blood pressure doesn’t mean you’re doomed to develop high blood pressure. This just means that perhaps you should consider a diet lower in sodium and a more active lifestyle.

23andMe makes a significant effort at educating their clients on exactly what they’re purchasing with the service, and offers loads of mini biology lessons. However, with direct-to-consumer genotyping making such intimate health details available without a physician intermediary the FDA was bound to get involved sooner or later. Since people may start making medical choices based on their data, the FDA ordered a cease and desist while it investigates regulating the genetics test as a medical device. For the time being, the health and disease risk results are shut down to newcomers on the site, but the genetic trait and ancestry information is still available.