…may have been the fact that he didn’t watch the Baby Einstein videos, distributed by the Walt Disney Company. A recent study by researchers at the University of Washington determined that those babies who regularly watched the supposedly stimulating videos actually scored more poorly on an assessment survey of language development. All research was conducted through phone interviews of over 1,000 parents of children between 2 and 24 months of age.

This has Disney in an uproar. They have challenged the quality of the research, the competence of the researchers, and the intelligence of the University, whose president has chosen to stand by the work and the press release bonanza that this study has created. Why do companies suddenly become experts in basic research only after the emergence of findings against their products? Would this attack on the excellence of the research exist if the opposite outcome had been true, and the videos actually enhanced language skills? Of course not. But that would have made for quite an interesting sticker label on the package –

“****New research determines that Baby Einstein videos enhance language development!!**** (however, we at the Disney Company have reason to believe that this study was conducted in a poor and sloppy manner and the potential remains that this DVD may hinder cognitive growth. Please watch at your own risk)”

It is senseless to debunk a published, peer-reviewed manuscript as non-rigorous without statistics, an independent study, or other credible evidence to back up such accusations just because you disagree with the outcome. However, in the defense of the company, their #1 concern seems to be the inflammatory, and potentially result-distorting, press release that was issued by the University. I agree that parts of that blurb leave much to be desired with regards to the facts (the University must know that very few parents out there are actually going to sit down and read the full article to make their own assessment of the study’s merits, especially if they don’t have full-access rights to the article.) But upon reading the response of Disney’s CEO to this press release, credibility erodes when it begins to look like his “high road” talk against an inaccurate, malicious press release is just a front, allowing him to proceed to bash the article itself. Of course, the president of UW reciprocated.

Disney has started to go down the appropriate path by working with an expert to assist them in interpreting the new findings, but even she was quoted in a Nature news feature as saying:

“"There are some valid conclusions in [the new study] that warrant additional research. I’m cautious, but it makes sense."

Disney should leave the research to the researchers, and the peer-review to the journals. If Disney is truly concerned and dedicated to the education of our youth, instead of fighting such studies, perhaps they should attempt to learn from them and encourage further dialogue amongst child development researchers, allowing both the company and the public to understand the full impact of their product. Meanwhile, one author of the DVD study suggested that watching anything, even American Idol, could be better for juvenile language development than these videos. Well, I don’t intend to encourage my children to watch reality TV anytime soon, but I also won’t be spending $370 on the Baby Einstein box set either. For the record, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no television for children under the age of two.

By the way, what ever happened to reading and conversation as language learning tools?

ZIMMERMAN, F., CHRISTAKIS, D., & MELTZOFF, A. (2007). Associations between Media Viewing and Language Development in Children Under Age 2 Years The Journal of Pediatrics, 151 (4), 364-368 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.04.071

In Washington DC, coalitions are always formed, with prominent congress(wo)men establishing a staunch public stance on controversial topics, usually to increase their own popularity with certain constituencies, and/or to increase their power. But what about the little-known, junior representative who backs the political giant? What does s/he get? Usually, a nice transportation funding package for the home state, ensuring future votes, or the gratitude of the senior official, perhaps leading to a future seat on an important committee. Well, it seems that chimpanzees operate in much the same way.

Although this won’t be the first time that someone compares Washington politics to monkey business, a new study in Current Biology exposes some of the intricate policies that exist in the world of male dominance amongst chimps. While these great apes may cooperate on a variety of tasks designed to help the colony as a whole, there is a fierce competition amongst the males for dominance and, of course, females. In order to ensure a dominant position, stronger males form coalitions to achieve and maintain status within the group. Once the alpha male is in place, these coalitions are sustained. What is unclear is what benefits the “supporters” derive from protecting and promoting the status of another male.

In the current study, the authors found that when females were ready to mate, the alpha male seized the lion’s share of the opportunities, as expected. Interestingly, they went on to describe that the way other males supported their leader was to protect him during his mating attempts. In return, the alpha male from this particular colony paid in full with the only currency that has long-lasting value to his cohorts: mating opportunities for themselves. The alpha male was much more tolerant of the mating attempts initiated by chimpanzees that supported his own copulatory tendencies the most, and interfered with the reproductive advances made by non-supportive males. It seems that the advantage of even a little access to receptive females is enough of a carrot to entice weaker males to defend Darwinian law and make it easier for the most-fit male to pass on his genes. For the alpha male, the allure and rich compensation of being on top trumps the instinct to fend off every potential rival, leading to the relinquishment of a handful of valuable mating attempts. Therefore, as in Washington, the price of remaining in power for a chimp is to make life easier for your friends and downright miserable for your enemies.

Duffy, K., Wrangham, R., & Silk, J. (2007). Male chimpanzees exchange political support for mating opportunities Current Biology, 17 (15) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.001