‘Baby Einstein’ Founder Goes to Court

[groovedaddy]

A co-founder of the company that created the “Baby Einstein” videos has asked a judge to order the University of Washington to release records relating to two studies that linked television viewing by young children to attention problems and delayed language development.

“All we’re asking for is the basis for what the university has represented to be groundbreaking research,” the co-founder, William Clark, said in a statementMonday. “Given that other research studies have not shown the same outcomes, we would like the raw data and analytical methods from the Washington studies so we can audit their methodology, and perhaps duplicate the studies, to see if the outcomes are the same."

Mr. Clark said that he had been seeking the information for years, but that the university had either denied his requests or failed to be fully responsive.

A spokesman for the university said its lawyers had not yet read the complaint and could not comment on the complaint.

“All I can tell you is that we gave them the records we had,” said Norm Arkans, a spokesman for the university.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/education/13einstein.html?th&emc=th

[hughee99]

1. I'm not a "Baby Einstein" fan, but

did the UW researchers really publish their conclusions but refuse to make their methodology and data available, even years afterwords? Something seems fishy about all of this.

[Celebration]

2. I know nothing about Baby Einstein

And this does sound pathetic. Very sleazy not to let methodology see the sunlight.

"Publish or perish", no matter what the discipline, can create some big problems.

[HuckleB]

3. I guess that will come out in court.

There seems to be opposing claims on that matter, at the moment.

What I find bizarre is that even if the studies were off base, despite peer-review, etc... is that it still doesn't offer evidence that "Baby Einstein" products serve any good purpose. So I don't understand what these people hope to accomplish.

[hughee99]

4. It's one thing to say there's no conclusive scientific evidence that this works...

you can still sell stuff based on this (magnetic bracelets, certain health supplements, etc...), but it's another to say that it hurts. This study isn't just saying that exposing your child to this doesn't help, but that it could increase their risks of attention problems and delay language development.

Maybe it's about money (lawsuits or some contractual clause with Disney, who now owns it) or maybe they were just big believers in what they were doing.

[HuckleB]

5. Snake oil is snake oil, IMO.

Nevertheless, the AAP recommendations originally came out in '99, so Disney went against those when it bought this company. And I'm not sure the UW studies are the only studies to have come to a similar conclusion.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;107/2/423

This is another study that just came out last year. This lawsuit might just bring more of this research to light for more parents.

http://www.usnews.com/health/family-health/childrens-health/articles/2009/11/02/tv-may-increase-aggression-in-toddlers.html

And another study...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/03/babies.watch.TV/index.html

[hughee99]

6. I not so sure...

If your snake oil is really tap water, that's one thing. If your snake oil is mercury and lead, that's another. In either case, you're being sold a lie, but one will hurt you while the other just won't help you. Yes, there are much better things a child could be doing with their time, and to that extent, the TV time is harmful in that it is wasted, "unproductive" time.

Both studies cite the unproductive time of it as harmful, but not specifically because of the TV itself but rather the lost opportunities. The first study goes into the content of the shows watched, but when referring to content, the problem isn't really TV in general, but rather the programming.

In both cases, though, these studies seem to have provided data and methodologies to support their conclusions and neither seems to have necessarily drawn the same conclusions as the UW studies. My issue here, though, isn't with the value or harm TV can cause, but with the situation where one can publish conclusions without providing key information as to how those conclusions were reached. I would hate to think this sort of behavior would become acceptable to anyone.

[HuckleB]

7. I'm not sure how you come to your conclusions about these studies.

Where is the evidence that they "provided data and methodologies to support their conclusions?" These were peer-reviewed, so what do you know that the reviewers didn't catch? Further, your description of the studies doesn't address the issue of increased aggression noted in the study published in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. The other study's conclusions are as described, and you can choose to ignore snake oil simply because you believe it does no harm, but I am not so sure that no harm is done. Further, I found those two bits with a two-minute search, and I doubt they're the only other studies out there, considering the AAP's statement originated in 1999.

[hughee99]

8. The first link does not work, so I don't know what the AAP study says,

but again, as I said, I don't support the notion that someone can publish their study's findings, while hiding or "misplacing" the data and methods that lead them to this conclusion, and have the study retain it's credibility. If they were concluding that water is wet and had it peer reviewed, but refused to show their data, I'd still be suspicious.

[salvorhardin]

9. DU's link-shortening code often has troubles with semicolons in URLs. Hope this helps.

For the past 15 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has expressed its concerns about the amount of time children and adolescents spend viewing television and the content of what they view.1 According to recent Nielsen Media Research data, the average child or adolescent watches an average of nearly 3 hours of television per day.2 This figure does not include time spent watching videotapes or playing video games3 (a 1999 study found that children spend an average of 6 hours 32 minutes per day with various media combined).4 By the time the average person reaches age 70, he or she will have spent the equivalent of 7 to 10 years watching television.5 One recent study found that 32% of 2- to 7-year-olds and 65% of 8- to 18-year-olds have television sets in their bedrooms.4 Time spent with various media may displace other more active and meaningful pursuits, such as reading, exercising, or playing with friends.

Although there are potential benefits from viewing some television shows, such as the promotion of positive aspects of social behavior (eg, sharing, manners, and cooperation), many negative health effects also can result. Children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the messages conveyed through television, which influence their perceptions and behaviors.6 Many younger children cannot discriminate between what they see and what is real. Research has shown primary negative health effects on violence and aggressive behavior7-12; sexuality7,13-15; academic performance16; body concept and self-image17-19; nutrition, dieting, and obesity17,20,21; and substance use and abuse patterns.7

In the scientific literature on media violence, the connection of media violence to real-life aggressive behavior and violence has been substantiated.8-12 As much as 10% to 20% of real-life violence may be attributable to media violence.22 The recently completed 3-year National Television Violence Study found the following: 1) nearly two thirds of all programming contains violence; 2) children's shows contain the most violence; 3) portrayals of violence are usually glamorized; and 4) perpetrators often go unpunished.23 A recent comprehensive analysis of music videos found that nearly one fourth of all Music Television (MTV) videos portray overt violence and depict weapon carrying.24 Research has shown that even television news can traumatize children or lead to nightmares.25 In a random survey of parents with children in kindergarten through sixth grade, 37% reported that their child had been frightened or upset by a television story in the preceding year.26

According to a recent content analysis, mainstream television programming contains large numbers of references to cigarettes, alcohol, and illicit drugs.27 One fourth of all MTV videos contain alcohol or tobacco use.28 A longitudinal study found a positive correlation between television and music video viewing and alcohol consumption among teens.29 Finally, content analyses show that children and teenagers continue to be bombarded with sexual imagery and innuendoes in programming and advertising.14,30,31 To date, there are no data available to substantiate the behavioral impact of this exposure.31
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;107/2/423
Alternate link: http://preview.tinyurl.com/aap-tv-policy

[HuckleB]

10. We don't know that anything was hidden.

That's a very big assumption to make right now. And that does not answer my post.

[hughee99]

11. I'm not sure what the lawsuit would gain,

if the records had already been provided. They could show up in the first day of court and the UW legal team drops a bunch of boxes, "Here are the Records" and the judge dismisses the case. I think the people suing haven't seen the full records (whether they're intentionally hidden or even missing for some innocent reason unrelated to the study). Is there any other reason to sue over a study that's a few years old for a product that they no longer own if they've already released their full data?

And which point didn't I answer? Mine was that people doing studies and releasing their findings should also have to release all their info, and failure to do so should make people suspicious of their findings.

[HuckleB]

12. UW claims the records have been given.

I don't find anyone who would push this type of product to be all that trustworthy. So I will not make that assumption.

You didn't answer my post at all, above. You simply went back to discussing the UW studies, while ignoring the post I made.

[hughee99]

13. So is your theory that they are suing for records that they already have?

I struggle to find any possible benefit to this action. Regardless of the outcome of the studies, my point was about the process of making the data, but if you want to know about the conclusions I drew from the articles...

From my post...
Both studies cite the unproductive time of it as harmful, but not specifically because of the TV itself but rather the lost opportunities.

From the second article (the US news link)
"TV is not a benign influence. It does have impact," said Richard Gallagher, director of the Parenting Institute at the New York University Child Study Center in New York City. And, while content may impact children, he pointed out that children's behaviors may also be affected by the "opportunities lost."

That means that when a child is watching TV, which is a passive behavior, the child doesn't have the opportunity to interact with other people and may have reduced contact with his or her peers.

(later on)
He added that parents need to act as a TV filter for their children. For example, he said, parents should point out when something is silly on TV that it's not a real-life scenario. Or, if they see something violent -- say an anvil dropping on someone's head in a cartoon -- parents need to interpret that for their children, and let them know what would happen if that were a real situation.

From the third link (the CNN link)
Pediatrician Dr. Michael Rich, a co-author of the latest study from Boston, calls baby educational DVDs and videos "just wasted time."

"At the very best, they steal time from much more productive cognitive developmental activities," he said. "Ultimately, what it's about is to make parents not feel guilty about an electronic baby sitter."

From my post...
"The first study goes into the content of the shows watched, but when referring to content, the problem isn't really TV in general, but rather the programming."

See above, in the study from the US news link, they specifically discuss violent programming. If the problem is the TV in general and not the content, why would a filter be necessary? My original assumption, perhaps false, is that the Parenting Institute at the New York University Child Study Center in New York City was involved in the University of Albany School of Public Health's study and commenting specifically on the study, but I realize that this may not necessarily be the case.

I'll admit, I did falsely understand the quote from the the AAP council to be a quote from those performing the study which did cause me some confusion here.
"Exposure to violence in media, including television, movies, music and video games, represents a significant risk to the health of children and adolescents. Extensive research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares and fear of being harmed," wrote the AAP Council on Communications and Media.

From my post...
In both cases, though, these studies seem to have provided data and methodologies to support their conclusions and neither seems to have necessarily drawn the same conclusions as the UW studies.

Neither study, as described in this article in this article, makes ANY mention of attention problems or delayed language development. One article describes it as at best, just wasted time.

As far as how I know these studies have released their data, you got me there... I have no idea if the studies you provided have released their data either. Both articles refer to the study being released, but I'll admit I'm not sure if the research or just the conclusions were made available.

All of this is irrelevant to my main point which is that the data should be made available, and I'm sorry if you don't trust the people suing to get information released, but “All I can tell you is that we gave them the records we had,” inspires exactly ZERO confidence in me that all the data was made available. Maybe the researchers are hiding something, maybe they took bad notes, maybe there was a fire or flood in the building that holds the records and some have been lost, who knows. If all the info is actually made available, I fail to see how the plaintiffs will benefit from some nefarious scheme. If all the info (not just "all the records we had") is already available, then this lawsuit isn't going to get anywhere and the study should be repeatable.

[Celebration]

14. you are correct

There is no good reason that the data underlying the study to not be retained and given.

And Baby Einstein may or may not be helpful to kids, but I seriously doubt if it is violent. Studies that address the poor content of TV programming and its effects on kids would likely not be applicable to Baby Einstein.

I wonder exactly what the UW study concluded exactly? Maybe that merely watching TV could cause autism because of flickers or something???? I think I remember that some study found that, because my daughter wouldn't even turn on the TV around her son until he was two years old. She mumbled something about autism I think. I thought it was a bit preposterous since he never looked at it even if it was on.

[HuckleB]

15. So you are making assumptions based on the US News report.

That's not a place I would go. The likelihood of those assumptions being accurate is minimal at best.

Bye.

[hughee99]

17. And instead of addressing my argument at all

You were discussing the content of the studies, rather than the possibility that the UW study has not released it's full research. The likelihood that the former owners are suing UW to get research data they already have access to, in defense of a product they no longer have any financial stake in, for some nefarious purpose is also minimal.

[HuckleB]

18. I'm not the one who kept changing the direction of the discussion.

Nice try.

Bye. (And that means I wont' be responding again.)

[hughee99]

20. Since the OP is about people suing to get the data released

I thought that WAS the direction of the discussion. That WAS the topic of my first post, the post that you responded to, and while I did discuss aspects of the study itself, in EACH AND EVERY post I reiterated that my main point was that the data should be released. And while we managed to get many posts into this without you even accepting the possibility that UW hasn't actually released all the data (for whatever reason), this isn't going anywhere anyway.

If you don't have an issue with publishing findings without making all the information of the study available, then that's fine. I'm still not sure what you think I was trying to do, to "trick" you into admitting that data from studies should be released? Oh well, you were just too clever for me. :)

[HuckleB]

16. The Baby Einstein Hubbub (a good piece on the issue by an MD)

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1482#more-1482

[HuckleB]

19. Baby Bullshit! Penn & Teller.

http://www.sho.com/site/video/brightcove/series/title.do?bcpid=1305032885&bclid=1349536010

[HuckleB]

21. Don't Count on DVDs to Improve Tots' Vocabulary

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/18762