October 26, 2011, - 3:38 pm

Well Known Cancer Charity Wasted Resources on Dumb “Makeup” Study

By Debbie Schlussel

A new study on women’s cosmetics says that women who wear makeup are seen as more “competent” in the workplace.  Gee, I’m shocked at the finding . . . especially since it was funded by CoverGirl makeup’s parent company, Procter & Gamble.  But the bigger story, to me, is who designed carried out this dumb study:  Boston University and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.  (Oh, and it’s also interesting that Harvard professors did this silly study.  Remember that the next time you meet a proud Harvard grad.)

Nancy Etcoff [is] the study’s lead author and an assistant clinical professor of psychology at Harvard University (yes, scholars there study eyeshadow as well as stem cells). . . . No research, till now, has given makeup credit for people inferring that a woman was capable, reliable and amiable.

Wow, how did we heretofore function as a society without these important findings?!

The study was paid for by Procter & Gamble, which sells CoverGirl and Dolce & Gabbana makeup, but researchers like Professor Etcoff and others from Boston University and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute were responsible for its design and execution.

If you’re wondering what the heck studying whether wearing lipstick and eyeliner makes working women seem more competent, has to do with studying and treating cancer, great minds think alike, because I was wondering that, too.  I also wonder how much in donor money meant for cancer research and given to Dana-Farber and how much of the cancer center’s resources went to this silly eyeliner-ology research.

Let this be a lesson to you–a lesson I’ve noted on this site before with regard to Sean Hannity’s Freedom Concert scam and other purported charities:  charities don’t always use the money for what they claim they do.  In many cases, it goes to scams–like spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on private planes and hotel suites for Sean Hannity and his cronies–or, in this case, designing cosmetics studies.  Even if P&G paid Dana-Farber to design and implement the study, it makes no difference, as it takes employees away from their job:  cancer research.

If I were a donor to Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, I’d now be a former donor.  The organization should be looking into cancer and trying to cure it, not designing studies on whether wearing blush and mascara helps women in the workplace.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

20 Responses

Were these the same Harvard professors who shrilly attacked Larry Summers for his supposed sexist attitudes and fluttered all around in shock when he suggested that the bell-shaped curve in certain respects was narrower for women than for men?

Little Al on October 26, 2011 at 3:54 pm

they and nearly every other
tearjerker charity
has probably wasted
plenty of donated money on

the greenhouse effect
the ozone hoax
man made global warming
climate change

time to demand total
accountability and transparency

most of these orgs are run
by leftists who
channel the money to their
political causes


prestigio on October 26, 2011 at 4:30 pm

Oh, but it gets better, Deb. Your tax dollars subsidize these studies. Whenever someone gets a student loan, or there is a grant to build another university building to study pee stains of chimpanzees or the sexual habits of left handed eskimo lesbian tuba players, you, the taxpayer, are paying for that study one way or another.

Let us also not forget that as a consumer of Procter and Gambles’ makeup, Gillette razors, etc., you are paying for these studies.

Jonathan E. Grant on October 26, 2011 at 5:03 pm

i never noticed how many followers you have.. god.. so many.. you are amazing, champion-like.. good work you dumb slut

yvne on October 26, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    ignoratum sempiternum

    wallow in it kid

    prestigio on October 26, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    Oh look, it’s the nasty Yvon. Back and full of high dudgeon.

    And as always, NEVER contributing to the discussion/debate but always slinging his dumb invective.

    Yvon, do us a favour. If you can’t add to the debate, then just go look in your bathroom mirror and scream all the stuff in front of it that you wanna say here. You’re beyond tiresome with your one-trick-pony crap.

    Skunky on October 26, 2011 at 7:03 pm

DS – I think it is very funny that you bring up Vannity in this piece. When Vannity takes off his make up after he is done with his show (I’m assuming he takes it off when he’s done on the set, but you never know), does he appear less competent to his co-workers? And is that actually possible?

Jarhead on October 26, 2011 at 6:52 pm

I think all these charities are just backdoor ways to give Liberals the money they otherwise wouldn’t get from Conservatives. We all are for cancer research but not through the bloody hands of Planned Parenthood via Susan G Komen. So all these athletes wearing pink socks and headbands make me sick.


Go to Hell Susan G Komen Foundation. Over $3 MILLION given to Butchers on the Block.

CaliforniaScreaming on October 26, 2011 at 6:53 pm

DS, I’d like to see you look into the October “pink ribbon” crap regarding breast cancer research and charitable giving. They are like the Sean Hannity of cancer scams.

I like the colour pink, but I never buy anything pink to donate to breast cancer. Most of the $$ doesn’t go to the research or people in need of help. If I buy something associated with the cancer promo, it is because I like it and not due to the charity.

And as I found out through the years, I fare best when I give to small, local charities than HUGE ones. And my charities of choice are mainly animal and military. Those I am passionate about and I make sure they are not scammy and have huge overhead.

Skunky on October 26, 2011 at 6:57 pm

If you want to see what some of the presidents and CEO’s of these charities are making, go to Charitynavigator.com.

Some heads of charities make over a million dollars a year.

Jonathan E. Grant on October 26, 2011 at 8:10 pm

Yeah, well I wouldn’t go knocking Dana Farber. Yes,there are a few peripheral stupid superficial “studies ” that take place
there but the majority of the research and treatment is outstanding. How do I know? As a medical professional with incurable l cancer they have kept me alive far longer than I have ever thought possible . So no, all of you are wrong.

Richard Harris on October 26, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    To Richard Harris:

    I have also had cancer. Twice. And yes, I appreciate the researchers, and yes, I work with medical professionals. That does not excuse a waste of money on a stupid study. People give to charities for a specific reason, and they don’t want to see their money frittered away.

    Jonathan E. Grant on October 27, 2011 at 9:59 am

The fact that they do a certain amount of useful medical work does not at all excuse the stupid work they do. If they cut out the stupid work they’d keep even more people alive. And even many “medical professionals” — whatever categories that encompasses, and in our politically correct environment it encompasses more and more, — and even many or most physicians do not have the expertise to say that the “majority” (no less) of their “research and treatment” (a rather huge category) is outstanding.

Little Al on October 26, 2011 at 10:12 pm

Richard Harris–

If you actually looked into the matter, I think that you would discover that there are far more than just a few peripheral stupid superficial studies that take place.

And, I’m not singling out Dana Farber.

A fair bet would be at least 30% of all sponsored research in health sciences is a complete and total waste. Try reading a journal (any journal except “Cell”) some time–and try not to puke.

If that’s too taxing, try listing all the real breakthroughs in cancer treatment that have occurred in the last 50 years. There are very few.

Red Ryder on October 27, 2011 at 12:43 pm

Speaking of Dumbassity at our universities, have you seen where muslimes are offended by crosses and paintings of Jesus at Catholic University and have filed complaints about it? If they are offended, why did they enroll at the private Catholic University anyway? I hope Catholic University thumbs their collective noses at these muslime bastards and tells them to take a long walk off a very short pier.

This situation is like going to a topless bar and being offended by nudity and the consumption of adult beverages. Like they didn’t know there would be crosses and paintings of Jesus and all sorts of Christian images. It even says it in the name, it’s Catholic!! I guess when all mosques put up crosses and menorahs I might change my mind.

Jarhead on October 27, 2011 at 1:43 pm


Here’s hoping that Catholic University will not give in. Guaranteed that (formerly Catholic) Notre Dame would.

Red Ryder on October 27, 2011 at 3:13 pm

Gee, I just revisited this Dana Farber blog about DANA FARBER and my specific points about, oh, specifically DANA FARBER and to my amazement not one respondent responded specifically to my specific comment. Yes most scientific research is bs. We all know that. It could be even as basic as being able to read properly, digest what your reading correctly and respond on point to what had been said and not all over the ballpark. To put it kindly, you are all – unbelievable

Richard Harris on October 28, 2011 at 11:33 am

No one’s gonna cure cancer when there’s so much money to be made treating it. That sounds like leftist conspiracy nut stuff, but really, once big pharm and the FDA got in cahoots medicine took a backseat to money.

It’s the same with the prison system, illegal immigration, drug testing…as long there’s profit to made from other people’s hardship, reform will never happen. Most of us eat the cost without even a mild word of protest.

Blight of the Hunter on October 28, 2011 at 11:36 pm

If you look good on the outside, you will eventually start to feel better!

Anna Marie on December 29, 2011 at 7:59 pm

Whoa! This blog looks exactly like my old one! It’s on a completely different
subject but it has pretty much the same page layout and design.
Wonderful choice of colors!

?????????? ??? on November 28, 2013 at 6:58 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field