Aug 25 2011
What’s Your Blood Type?
The Canadian Blood Services (CBS) has started a new campaign – What’s Your Type. It looks like a cute campaign to promote blood donation. Unfortunately, CBS has chosen to promote various pseudosciences in the process. You can click a button to “know your type” and will be given what is essentially an astrological reading based upon blood type instead of star sign. In addition there is information about how to eat right for your blood type.
Blood type astrology is common in Japan and other Asian countries, more common, in fact, than astrology is in the west. Blood type is often disclosed in personal ads, on Facebook profiles, in Celebrity gossip columns, and fictional characters are often given a blood type. This even enters into politics – as politicians are often pressured to disclose their blood type.
It all seems silly – the superstitions of other cultures typically do (although to some they may also sound exotic and therefore alluring). Blood type astrology, however, is no more silly than the many superstitious beliefs that are common in the US or elsewhere.
For background, by “blood type” we mean the ABO blood type. These refer to antigens (proteins that react with the immune system) that exist on blood cells. There are type A and type B antigens, with O being the absence of both. People also have antibodies against the type they do not possess – so someone with type A blood has antibodies to the B antigen. There is also the Rh (or rhesus) factor, which is either positive or negative.
These are not the only blood group antigens, however. There are actually 30 blood groups and 600 potential blood group antigens. This is why when giving a blood transfusion you cannot simply match ABO blood type, you additionally have to actually mix donor and recipient blood together to see that they are compatible (called “cross matching”).
In addition, organ donors and recipients need to be matched for as many blood group antigens as possible. A 100% match is statistically unlikely, except from an identical twin. But the closer the match the better.
None of these antigens has any effect, however, on the development or functioning of the brain – no effect on personality. There is no plausibility to this belief, and neither is there any direct evidence of a link between ABO blood type and personality.
The Canadian site also presents information about how to eat right for your blood type. This is just as much pseudoscience as personality by blood type. The basic claim is that your biochemistry is linked to your blood type, and requires a different diet for optimal “balance.” This is pure nonsense, also lacking in any empirical support.
So why is an official Canadian website promoting rank pseudoscience? That’s a good question. They try to cover themselves with the typical disclaimer – this information is meant for your amusement only, check with your doctor, etc.
Sorry – this doesn’t cover it. Any recognized authority – a university, government organization, etc. that presents nonsense to the public will be looked upon as endorsing that nonsense. There is no way to hide or distance the institution from this reality. It is delusional to think otherwise – usually a delusion on the part of a marketing person.
PZ Myers recently gave us another example of this same phenomenon – The Community College of Rhode Island teaching a course on crystal healing from a Reiki master. When someone complained, a marketing person answered with “well, that’s what our student want, and we are not necessarily endorsing…” This is willful ignorance – of course you are endorsing the material you teach in a course. It has your implicit seal of approval. But apparently the marketing department of the college convinced the academic department that this would not reflect poorly on the reputation of the college. Wrong!
I do note that the CBS has now changed their What’s Your Type page to remove the pseudoscience. It seems the blogging backlash (before this post, as I am a bit late to this story) had a pretty immediately effect. That’s a good thing. The blogosphere has become a useful tool for embarrassing organizations into doing the right thing, at least occasionally.
We’ll see if the Community College of Rhode Island gets a clue, or if they are content to become an example of idiocy within science blogs.
12 Responses to “What’s Your Blood Type?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Seems like these institutions are following the main stream media model:
“Don’t tell the people what they need to hear,tell them what they want to hear”
Great article as always Steve!
This isn’t a new campaign though, check out the Ottawa Skeptics’ coverage from two years ago: http://www.ottawaskeptics.org/topics/alternative-medicine/268-canadian-blood-services-promotes-pseudoscience
We came to the same conclusion as you, big surprise
Of course, if science doesn’t support your ideas, you can just create a stand-alone institute:
http://www.dadamoinstitute.com/About-Us/philosophy.html
where, amongst other things, we’re told that iridology is “a very very exact science”.
naturopathyland!!!
-r.c.
jonny – thanks for the link. I couldn’t find how far back the campaign went because the page is not archived.
I sent them an email about this a while ago and got a generic form response back:
Thank you for your feedback regardingour What’s Your Type? program. We appreciate your taking the time to shareyour opinion with us.
We do make reference to selected aspects of ketsueki-gata within the What’sYour Type program and our intention is for this to be a light-hearted wayto involve potential new donors in the typing process.
However, we view it as only a minor part of the process. Once theinitial contact with a potential new donor is made, we use the What’s YourType program to discuss the science of blood typing. This includes explainingin detail the ABO categories of blood types as well as the use of anti-serumduring the typing process. Once the participant’s blood type has beendetermine, we explain the importance of knowing one’s type, as well asthe number of people within the Canadian population that have that sametype.
The conversation then moves to the idea of donating blood and the reasonswhy it is an important thing to do. While the typing is done in a mobileenvironment and not a lab, we find this part of the process is actuallya valuable window into the science behind blood and a demonstration thatmost participants find compelling and informative.
We have found the program to be a successful recruiting tool, particularlywith young people. They are often nervous about the typing, and the referenceto a potential link between personality and blood type offers them an avenueto share their experience with others in a way that, for many, relievesthe tension of the process. All participants, however, are made aware thatthe link between blood type and personality is not, in any way, scientific. The What’s Your Type? program is responsible for adding nearly 5,000new donors to our donor base last year alone, and has proven to be an effectiveavenue for introducing Canadians to donating blood.
We are working on some updates to theWhat’s Your Type program this year with more focus on science based factswhile still keeping the program fun for potential blood donors in Canada.
Thank you again for contacting us.
The Trueblood series is not possible because a bite of blood would not be a good match for every vampire (even ignoring the fact they are the living dead). Regarding the eating for your blood type diet, I had this nonsense presented to me at a Canadian- American chiropractor’s office.
As a Rhode Island resident I would like to say that CCRI’s (Community College of RI) reputation was marginal to begin with. As a Rhode Island Taxpayer, being squeezed by high taxes, and a monster deficit in this State I am appalled. The waste of resources to support this nonsense is distressing. This is a state supported school not a private institution. I will be sending a formal complaint letter to my state senator, representative, Governor, and Department of education. The local news station does a regular piece about wasting taxpayers dollars. Maybe they will be interested too.
For me, the most interesting part of this whole article was the final note that you basically just made in passing:
“It seems the blogging backlash (before this post, as I am a bit late to this story) had a pretty immediately effect. That’s a good thing. The blogosphere has become a useful tool for embarrassing organizations into doing the right thing, at least occasionally.”
That is very encouraging. Considering all the dubious alt-med stuff that has worked its way into our medical services and is still persistent, I have to give CBS props for realizing their mistake. Who knows whose initial idea it was and how the decision was made to use that as some sort of marketing. Mistakes get made. The important thing is recognizing and correcting those mistakes. If it was always this easy, we probably wouldn’t have much pseudoscience to worry about.
For an article that has a negative tone (and, I believe, is maybe a little too unfair to CBS), I actually think the encouraging message at the end is actually the most important point.
My girlfriend and some of my colleagues sometimes question why I spend so much time reading, writing, re-posting, and engaging everyone I can in these sorts of discussions – in essence they question the efficacy of what I do. I think the questioning is reasonable – sometimes I feel a bit overwhelmed (ok, a lot overwhelmed) and think that there is simply no way to turn the tide. But posts like this hearten me. As do my discussions with 1st year students who don’t understand what integrative medicine really is, why it is bad to endorse CAM, and how simply associating or offering such pseudo-babble at venerable and/or authoritative institutions lends that imprimatur of legitimacy no matter how much we wish it didn’t or how much it is not deserved.
Just recently I sat down for 3 hours with just such a student. By the end he was still unconvinced, but I had planted a seed. Of course, I spent the time explaining many of the things I have learned here and at SBM, RI, and Pharyngula (and my own studies, of course) but posed it as questions to him and made assertions when pertinent. Like a good science-based student he was provisionally unconvinced but asked me to send him more info. I did. And he wrote me back suddenly more aware. He still isn’t there, but he is definitely on track and I can tell by his tone that he will get there. And that is all because I had blogs like these to give me primary references and analysis to send him. And now he will be on his toes for next year’s CAM lectures, inform his classmates, and likely not end up being a “shruggie.” We don’t need everyone to be a serious activist, but opening some eyes and letting that knowledge and those ideas spread is yet another win for blogging like this – as indirectly as that may be.
Just thought you’d all enjoy a positive anecdote of my own work inspired by the likes of Dr. Novella.
I know I get the feeling of “what’s the point” and I can’t imagine that you don’t from time to time as well, Dr. Novella. Your story gave me a little boost just now so hopefully mine will do the same for you. Thank you for the great work and tireless effort.
@George: Right? I sort of blindly walk forth hoping that applying reason to the world will rub off on people. It’s just a small effect that to see actual results can be difficult and fleeting in most respects. I would like to think that the pseudoscience was taken down out of embarrassment rather than fear otherwise we’ve only kicked the can down the road a little, but I am sure skeptics are happy to take what they can get.
@nybgrus: A lot of the same to your comment, it looks. It’s difficult to actually see results, but isn’t it so rewarding when you do? I had a family member that was a particularly egregious case of science dismissive. Being a family member, however, I felt compelled to get through to him. I threw book after podcast after TV series at him in some attempt at a shotgun effect. Boom! The “Skeptoid” podcast and Neil deGrasse Tyson finally broke through. He went from driving me up a wall talking about how learning of the circulatory system doesn’t matter “because it doesn’t pay the mortgage” to stealing my copy of ‘Greatest Show On Earth’ (and finishing it long before I could) in a matter of months. Now whenever I engage someone I always keep that fresh in my mind as a motivator. Good luck in your efforts!
I found the archive.org link to the “What’s Your Type” campaign at CBS here: http://web.archive.org/web/20090307011427/http://www.bloodservices.ca/CentreApps/Internet/UW_V502_MainEngine.nsf/page/WYT_E?OpenDocument&CloseMenu
Frank
@TylerR – I’m not sure what you mean by “embarrassment rather than fear”. I was just trying to say that another possibility was that the blogosphere created enough noise to catch the attention of the right people within the CBS organization (i.e. science-oriented rather than marketing-oriented people). I wouldn’t exactly call that embarrassing them as much as informing them. Either way, the end result is good. I just think it’s too harsh to use such a negative tone on the CBS when they clearly remedied the situation, which should be applauded, I think, considering how much CAM stuff persists everywhere. We should encourage and hold up examples of organizations that get it right (whether from the start or from realizing errors). The reason it bugs me is because I got a bad impression about the CBS when I read the first couple of sentences on an other blog (which then linked to this full article). If I hadn’t taken the time to read all the way to the end of the article, I may have not even realized that the CBS quickly removed the bad marketing.
What is also interesting is the form letter response that Ash posted. CBS states that it was a successful recruiting tool for them. That’s a tricky situation. How do you market to the general public if you wing up being strictly scientific about the presentation? I’m sure it’s not an easy problem to solve. Another little bit of insight, which I think also demonstrates that maybe they don’t deserve to be criticized too strongly.