Gene Geniuses? Well, They Give DNA a Brand Name

There’s a lot of buzz these days about DNA--the coiled, two-stranded molecule that makes up the very blueprint of life. We do understand. After all, DNA is very important, and any day now scientists are expected to announce that they’ve figured out the structure of most of the human genetic code.

Still, we were perplexed to receive a mailer the other day about a bottled drink called DNA. What, has it got DNA in it or something?

“Oh my gosh! No! No! No!” exclaimed Taryn Lester, a publicist for the beverage company. There’s no DNA in the “DNA” drink, she reassured us--just alcohol.

But then why call it DNA? Why not “ethanol”? Or, if one really wants to get fancy: “C2H5OH”? Well, the word DNA “is so catchy. It’s in the news,” explained Lester, who works for a Venice public relations firm called the Blaze Co. “The branding is just so hot right now.”

The DNA-ification of products isn’t totally new: For years, hair products have contained DNA (or its relative, RNA), as if we can expect the molecules to direct the formation of new hair proteins right on our heads. (Not a chance, say dermatologists.)

And then there’s DNA perfume, sold in a cute bottle shaped like three coiled strands; never mind that real DNA has just two. (Whatever would famous biologists James Watson and Francis Crick have to say, after all that work they did to figure out the structure?) We are also aware of another perfume known as “Chromosome XX XY,” which we assume is for unisex use.

But is there no limit to where marketers will go in their use of the jargon of genetics? The other day, we received a flier promoting two types of soap (one formulated for him, the other for her) for cleansing a person’s private parts. Once people have gotten into the habit of such intimate cleansing, proclaims the release, “it will be inherited like a genetic mutation” and will “persist generation after generation.”

In the Name of Career Stereotypes

Talking of “branding,” psychologists at Ohio University in Athens recently reported some interesting findings about our perceptions of people’s names. Evidently, there’s a lot to this subject--enough, at any rate, to stoke the interest of the study’s lead author, James Bruning, for 20 years now.

In this most recent report--published in the Journal of Social Psychology--20 young adults were asked to assess the likely success of 16 people entering new careers.

They predicted that women with “feminine” names--such as Marta, Winifred and Irma--would more likely succeed in traditionally feminine careers: We’re talking hair stylist, nurse or interior decorator.

But how about a woman called Garret embarking on a career at a day care center? She was less likely to succeed, the study participants concluded.

Male names were similarly stereotyped. Howard, Boris, Hank or Bruno were destined to do well in such jobs as plumber, truck driver and electrician, predicted the participants. But Hank as a hair stylist? Iffy.

“I wouldn’t overestimate the impact of names,” says Bruning. “But at the same time, names are an important part of first impressions.”

*

Got a Booster Shots idea you’re just dying to tell us about? E-mail or write Rosie Mestel at L.A. Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053, or rosie.mestel@latimes.com.