William Clark And Julie Clark, Baby Einstein Creators, To Challenge University of Washington Research About Their Products Again

SEATTLE -- Ever since a University of Washington study showed four years ago that watching videos doesn't make infants smarter, the creators of the Baby Einstein series have been battling the school in court and in the media.

Baby Einstein co-founder William Clark announced Thursday what he considers a victory in this battle. The university has agreed to pay him $175,000 to cover some of his legal fees and turn over the original data from the study that discredited the baby videos.

Clark said he has won his public records fight with the university and he expects new debate over the research, saying the data he has been given has problems.

The university and a researcher involved in the project stand by the study, which was published in a major medical journal, and the data. They say that if Clark wants to discredit the research, he should do his own study or reanalyze the data.

"We stand behind the integrity of the researchers and their studies," university spokesman Bob Roseth said Thursday. "This study was vetted according to the best tradition of science in the United States."

The research study was published in the August 2007 issue of the Journal of Pediatrics. It explored the effect of watching educational videos on very young children and found that products like Baby Einstein might slow – not enhance – language acquisition. The study found for every hour a child, who is 8- to 16-months-old watched educational videos, they could recognize six to eight fewer words compared to kids who didn't watch the videos.

Disney – which purchased Baby Einstein from Clark and his wife, Julie Aigner-Clark, in 2001 – eventually offered a full refund to everyone who bought the videos between 2004 and 2009 and changed their marketing to remove statements saying the videos were educational.

Starting in 2007, the university denied several public records requests from Clark, citing its inability to share the data without violating the privacy rights of its human research study participants. Then last year, Clark sued in King County Superior Court to get the data, and after several legal rounds, the university turned it over to Clark.

Clark now has the data in two forms: paper data was supplied two years ago with personal information about the research subjects crossed out by hand. The electronic data delivered recently was redacted electronically.

"I find myself in a real awkward situation," Clark said by telephone from Denver. He said he has found discrepancies between the paper and electronic versions that the university has not explained to his satisfaction.

Clark said the problems are in important sections of the data that show how many words children recognized after watching educational videos and he estimates as many as 5,000 fields may be affected.

Roseth, of the University of Washington, said both the printed copy and the electronic files come from the exact same data set. The information was converted into PDFs before printing and something happened during that translation that changed some data fields, he said.

"Those records were secure. None of the data files were altered. The underlying file was not changed," Roseth said.

Clark said he questions that explanation because of where the problems are located and because other researchers have told him they have never had a similar problem.

"It's an IBM program. It has to be bulletproof," he said of the computer program used by researchers to process the data.

Dr. Dimitri Christakis, a doctor at Seattle Children's hospital who co-authored the study, said the Clarks have been out to discredit that research since the day it was first published.

"It's frustrating to me. There's a single copy of the data and the university has always had it," Christakis said Thursday.

He said other peer-reviewed studies, including one published in the May 2010 edition of the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine have found similar results.

"The person with the agenda is not me. It's them. I didn't pick a fight with the Clarks or with Disney," Christakis said. "My agenda is to improve child health and that's what brings me to work every day."

Comments

[mogendaved]

11:09 AM on 07/07/2011

Here's the only question that matters: Since Baby Einstein videos have been produced since 1996, there is 15 years of data available , from age 0 - age 14 inclusive of ALL Baby Einstein babies. What's the data from the actual viewers? Do they have higher test scores, are they placing higher in the ranks of their classes (through high school at this point). There's 15 years of empirical data out there, not just some study. What gives?

[bradkevans]

08:42 AM on 07/05/2011

I dont know about the research, but my 23 month old daughter is a bright light and loves B.E. I first showed her these videos at 16 mos. And just revisted them for the first time in 4 mos last week, and was personally amazed by her ability to recognize and verbally describe the animals... While i dont have access to other toddlers to compare research to, Ruby has definitely advanced because of these videos.

[mistercrispyusa]

12:18 PM on 07/02/2011

This goes to show that the profit motive in the free market is not the solution to all our problems and woes. In fact, it often acts as a convincing shroud for hustlers bent on fooling you into paying them money for pipe dreams and lies. Sensible and effective regulation is always necessary to make sure consumers aren't hoodwinked, but conservatives insist that deceivers like Clark be allowed to trick you and lie to you with impunity.

[Steve Reaves]

09:23 AM on 07/02/2011

My Mom read to me, pointing to each word as she read. By the time I began first grade I had finished the "Hardy Boys" series on my own. No videos. No TV. Read to your kids. Turn off the television and spend time with them. Talk to them for hours at a time. Don't rely on "Barney" to keep them out of your hair.

[chinarider3819]

09:10 AM on 07/02/2011

I hope they lose, so that everyone can see how completely scammed they truly are by these two. There is ONE thing that makes for an intelligent child..TIME. When you pay attention and try to create a positive and responsive enviorment, your children will be better for it. Those videos they sell, are a complete joke, not to mention a waste of money. These two are getting rich off simple logic. Don't make them richer, just pay attention to your little people and treat them with stories and "together" time. You'll be amazed how responsive and truly intelligent they can be. And don't forget the, still, FREE library.

[efeeezy]

02:21 AM on 07/02/2011

Carrots will keep you from going blind

[mogendaved]

10:57 AM on 07/07/2011

Just don't touch yourself , it'll cancel it out.

[robertste998]

10:29 PM on 07/01/2011

The product is as much a fraud as holistic medicine, chiropractors, and astrology. They all have a big buildup based on pseudo-science assumptions instead of fact.

[sbsuperfly]

11:21 PM on 07/01/2011

You left out global warming

[noonrock]

12:18 AM on 07/02/2011

As a retired psychologist I stand with you and your conclusions. The process of neural development in the infant brain is much more complicated than a ill-chosen short cut method which would assume developmental efficacy. I'm surprised the originators have not been forced, in court, to defend their product.

[chinarider3819]

09:19 AM on 07/02/2011

Thank you! Well said. I agree and hope more will read your expert advice, because you speak the truth. It's sad that too many people are relying on others, to raise, and educate their children.

[thepoliticalcat]

10:17 PM on 07/01/2011

When trying to determine why someone does what they do, or who is more likely to be telling the truth in a case like this, the crucial question to ask is, "Who benefits?" Clearly, Mr. and Mrs. Clark stand to benefit by discrediting the researcher, as they will then be able to sell their product. The researcher does not stand to benefit since, regardless of what his research proves, his personal wealth or lack thereof remains the same.

[Streit Rhoades]

07:24 AM on 07/02/2011

Follow the money, or as you termed it, 'who benefits' is always a good start to discovering motive. It's hard for me to believe that anyone bought this product and its' claims even before this research showed it to be a scam.

[jimall3]

08:49 PM on 07/01/2011

A parent thinks they can buy a study aid and it will make their child smarter as in more intelligent, those parents are well, really dumb.

No product can raise your IQ. It may make you more able to memorize or better and more enthusiastic about study, or more disciplined (which makes it worthwhile if true). but it cannot make that innate, biological quality that really intelligent people possess happen. The notions is....stupid.

[berlytowns]

08:43 PM on 07/01/2011

I have two daughters. One started talking at 2 months old and in sentences at 6 months. She knew colors and shapes and a whole lot more before she was a year old. Baby Einstien was not invented when she was a baby or toddler or even young adult. My other daughter started talking at 6 months and in sentences at 8 months. In less than a year, she went from reading on a first grade level to reading on college level. She could put together a 12 piece puzzle by the time she turned one, and any 100 piece puzzle by the time whe was 2. Never heard of Baby Einstein until she was in grade school.


Einstein himself, and the world's brightest minds never used it either. Hmmm...

[buzzina]

09:48 PM on 07/01/2011

Wow, where are your daughters now? I bet full Professor by age 12!

[sbsuperfly]

11:23 PM on 07/01/2011

FACT: it is physically impossible for a 2 month old to talk

[auntliddy14]

08:39 PM on 07/01/2011

I never thought they videos were meant to be educational; just to expose them to classical music,art, and beautiful images in kid friendly way. All 5 of my grandchildren enjoy them, they are all very bright- who knows? coincidence or because of baby einstein? at the very least, the videos are completely benign, and, frankly quite relaxing for me when I watched with children! Certainly nothing to fight about!

[thepoliticalcat]

10:18 PM on 07/01/2011

Where money is involved, there is always fighting.

[Jman044]

08:32 PM on 07/01/2011

Wow, I'm no mad scientist or researcher BUT I watched Sesame Street with my daughter and Baby Einstein with my grand daughter. I rather enjoyed them as much as they did and they are both smart as a whip. I'm wondering why critics challenge everything.

[brzygl]

07:28 PM on 07/01/2011

My eight year old was only allowed to watch Baby Einstein from age of 1-about 3 and she was talking wayyyyyyy before most babies. At 1 and a half she was saying windmill, aggravated, Danielle, and MANY ither words. We intercted with her a lot, too, but most parents with their first child tend to do this, too. Most of her toys were leap frog toys, too. Her IQ was measured at 7 years old, and her composite IQ was 141. Her verbal IQ was 144. I am a FIRM believer that Baby Einstein videos contributed to her intellect in a big way.

[prada2011]

05:52 PM on 07/01/2011

I have a six month old daughter. I interact with her a lot. I have baby einstein and your baby can read. I would much rather if she wants to watch tv for her to watch something that is more educational than any cartoon. My daughter can say hi, yes and a few other short words. I have people who come up to her and talk to her and she will respond and they look at me in shock. Rather it is the interaction between me and her or not like I said would rather have her watch something that could "potentially" stimulate her mind in a good way. And for those parents that do use learning dvds etc good for you. I would much rather have a parent that would try to sit down and help me learn and provide the best. Much rather then the ones I see in the headlines all the time killing there children.....

[Mustangallee]

05:35 PM on 07/01/2011

So you can not both spend time with your child and let them watch a half hour video while your doing the dishes?!!!

My daughter is both educated and a mother who let her child watch Baby Einstein videos half an hour each day. He did learn a lot, yes he would have been just as smart with out them, but he would have had less knowledge.
At 3 he was able to identify and name the difference between many kinds of plants and flowers. I wasn't sure which was Lavender and Heather, but he was!
It is up to each individual parent if the children watch or not. I don't think a child should be sitting in front of a TV all day either, (neither does my daughter) but it sure is better than the parents we read about each day neglecting and abusing their kids. So if you care enough to read and comment on this article...GOOD JOB!!!