Archives
  • iStock/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) -- Anne Wojcicki isn’t a typical CEO.The 44-year-old mother of two who runs the consumer genetics and research company 23andMe, reportedly valued at over $1 billion, prefers a uniform of Lululemon shorts, bikes to work every day -- unless it’s raining -- and didn’t exactly set out on the executive path.“I was in college. I didn't know that there were real jobs. I think about how naive I was on the job development process,” Wojcicki says on an episode of ABC Radio’s “No Limits with Rebecca Jarvis” podcast.Wojcicki says she grew up in an “academic environment.” Her father was the chair of the physics department at Stanford University and her mother, Esther Wojcicki, is a renowned journalism teacher.Her parents raised three successful daughters: Susan Wojcicki is CEO of YouTub and Dr. Janet Wojcicki is an anthropologist and epidemiologist at UCSF.Growing up they were taught “to just be curious and to problem solve.”As a child, Wojcicki loved science and recalls a definitive moment from Kindergarten when she first learned about DNA."My sister was talking about genes and I kept staring at her. I was like, 'But you have shorts on,'" she recalled. "It was because they were talking about DNA. And that was the first time I ever heard about DNA and I was fascinated. Absolutely fascinating that there's like this thing inside you and you could discover it."When it came time to apply for jobs after college, Wojcicki, who studied biology at Yale University, didn’t have a clear idea of what she wanted to do.“My mom was like, ‘Just interview for a bunch of stuff and see.’ And I very randomly got this job offer for the Wallenberg family in Sweden as an analyst," she said. "I had no idea what it was.""And I kind of took the job mostly because I wanted to wear Ann Taylor clothing, like I thought it would be fun to dress up,” Wojcicki told Jarvis, laughing at the memory.She spent nearly a decade working in healthcare investing, focusing primarily on biotechnology companies. She says the information she learned on the job was invaluable.“In some ways, as an analyst on Wall Street, I couldn't have asked for a better training because here I was at 22 and I had this opportunity to study every single healthcare company out there. I always felt like my 10 years on Wall Street was like getting a Ph.D. and then a postdoc,” Wojcicki said.She loved some aspects of the job: studying healthcare companies, learning the science behind the work they were doing, and speaking to CEOs and even Nobel Prize winners. But she became disillusioned about the healthcare industry as a whole.“The big conclusion that I learned was, this was a system that does not reflect what's in my best interest. I loved the research and that element but I also just started to feel like this is a system that was taking advantage of people,” Wojcicki recalls.Keeping her day job, she began to volunteer in hospitals at night and she saw firsthand how patients struggled with astronomical medical bills. Her tipping point? A conference about insurance reimbursement.“All these people were at this meeting just to figure out how to optimize billing. How can you bill more for every procedure? And I just realized, I’m done. It was that moment where I was like, 'The system's never going to change from within, [and] so many people make money on the inefficiencies of health care,'" she said. "And I felt like that was the end. I know how the system works. I'm going to try to make a difference.”Wojcicki left her lucrative career on Wall Street to launch 23andMe, a genetic testing and research company that offers affordable, home-based saliva collection kits to provide customers with access to their genetic information. This includes reports on traits, wellness, carrier status and genetic ancestry.They also offer customers the option to
    Read more...
  • iStock/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) -- Female representation in the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) has improved somewhat, but a new study looked at the authors of millions of articles and found there is still more work to be done in promoting women in academia."Of the gender-biased disciplines, almost all are moving towards parity, though some are predicted to take decades or even centuries to reach it," Dr. Cindy Hauser, senior research fellow in mathematics at the University of Melbourne and one of the authors on the study, said in a statement.Women were significantly underrepresented as senior authors on studies, according to the study published Thursday in the journal PLOS Biology.The fields with the lowest amount of female representation were: Physics, computer science, mathematics, surgery and chemistry.The study, conducted at the University of Melbourne, found 87 out of the 115 identified STEM disciplines had fewer than 45 percent of authors who were female.Researchers used a computer algorithm to search through almost 11 million academic publications listed on 2 major science databases, PubMed and arXiv, which track more than 6,000 STEM journals. They identified 50 million authors -- and the computer assigned a gender to almost 37 million.From that data, they produced a series of gender ratios: The percentage of women who were lead authors of research or senior authors of research, which publications published research and how often women were invited to write editorials, conduct reviews or provide commentary.The team projected how long it would take to reach gender parity by field.Physics, for instance, showed only 13 percent of senior positions held by women -- a gap that they forecasted to take 258 years to close.The team chose to focus on academic publications, since they are currently the primary means of disseminating scientific knowledge and the principal measure of research productivity, thereby influencing the career prospects and visibility of women in STEM, said Dr. Devi Stuart-Fox, an author on the study and evolutionary biologist at the University of Melbourne.The gender gap was noted to be even wider at more prestigious journals, such as Nature, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal. The calculations showed the higher the journal's stature and impact, the less women were represented.The authors think this could be for several reasons: Prestigious journals receive numerous submissions, so editors reject many publications without blind peer review, disadvantaging women as names are visible on the first review.Women may be less likely to be mentored or encouraged to submit their work to more prestigious publications. Prestigious journals also publish more invited submissions, which in this dataset showed men were 1.7 to 2.1 times more likely to be invited to submit work for a publication.The authors hope their research promotes more reforms in academic STEM to move closer towards gender parity. To help in the process, the researchers have also made their data and findings free and publically available to access online -- and suggested the data could help find ways to change the selection process.
    Read more...
  • Homeroom Restaurant(OAKLAND, Calif.) -- Chrissel Orcino had a "code red" at one of her tables.When Orcino, a server at the Oakland, California, restaurant Homeroom, went to pick up the check for her table of three -- two men and one woman -- something alarming happened.A man was eager to pay for the tab of the entire table, Orcino said and reached into her apron pocket with his credit card.“I could, like, feel his, like, hand move all the way down to the bottom of the pocket with his card,” Orcino, 28, recalled.Orcino was in total shock.“He could’ve just handed me his card or went up to the register and paid for the whole table,” she said. “It was pretty traumatic to have somebody touch me out of nowhere.”But instead of explaining to her manager the details of what happened, Orcino told him she had a code red, and he knew what to do.That’s because, at Homeroom, the staff has a system in place to categorize different types of customer behavior, like Orcino’s experience.The Management Alert Color System, known as MACS because they’re a mac and cheese restaurant, has three tiers: yellow, orange and red.“Yellow is just where someone gets a creepy vibe. Nothing has happened. An orange is where they’ve said something that’s a little bit borderline -- like it could be sexual harassment, it could not be. Like, ‘Hey I love your shirt.’ Right? It could sort of go either way,” Erin Wade, co-founder and chief executive of Homeroom, explained. “And a red is something that’s overtly sexual, like, ‘Hey, you look super sexy in that.’ Or where someone touches someone else.”A staff member doesn’t have to explain the experience to their manager. All they have to do is report the color, and there’s an automatic action that the manager must take.In the case of a code yellow, the server can choose if they want a manager to take over the table, and if they report an orange, the manager will automatically take it over. With a code red, the customer is asked to leave.New hires are introduced to MACS at their orientation and are empowered to bring up potentially problematic behavior and situations in or around the restaurant with their manager, whether it’s involving customers, vendors or a delivery driver.Watch "My Reality: A Hidden America," a special report by ABC News' Diane Sawyer for "20/20" airing on Friday, April 20 at 10 p.m. ET“All they have to do is come up to me and say, ‘I have a code yellow at a table, and I just don’t feel comfortable serving them.’ And I don’t even have to ask them questions about what happened. I just say, ‘ Not a problem. I’m happy to step in and take over that table so you don’t have to deal with it,’” said Kale Irwin, a Homeroom manager.The anti-harassment system was started a few years ago when the staff felt they were having a hard time communicating to management when an experience with sexual harassment or other problematic behavior was occurring.Since the introduction of MACS, Wade says, Homeroom has had fewer code reds, because, “It seems to stem harassment at a really early level.”For Orcino, the system helped her in a moment she was too distressed to explain her own emotions, let alone what happened when that male customer reached into her apron.“In any other situation, if we didn’t have the system, then I would have to explain the whole thing and go through the whole process, and in a time when we’re really busy and I can’t even process my own emotions,” Orcino said. “This incident with this guest happened so fast, so abruptly, that I was completely in shock.”Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
    Read more...
  • Mark Makela/Getty Images(PHILADELPHIA) -- The former Starbucks manager whose telephone call initiated the controversial arrest of two African-American men at her downtown Philadelphia store told 911, “I have two gentlemen at my cafe that are refusing to make a purchase or leave,” according to the taped audio of the call released by police Tuesday.Responding to the 4:37 p.m. call last Thursday, the operator said she would send police to the location at 18th and Spruce Streets and, about three minutes later, a radio dispatcher can be heard in the audio saying, “1801 Spruce at Starbucks a group of males” was “refusing to leave.”After police arrived, they requested an additional officer and supervisor, according to the audio.Police then radioed at 5 p.m. that they would be transporting the two arrested men to police headquarters.The incident has prompted widespread condemnation, protests, an apology from Starbucks’ CEO and a plan to close all the U.S. company-owned stores for an afternoon of racial-bias education. The manager is no longer employed there.Melissa DePino, whose video of the arrest went viral on social media, told ABC News the men were doing nothing more than sitting at a table when police officers entered the shop, put them in handcuffs and hauled them away.Starbucks released a statement Tuesday saying all 8,000 of its nationwide company-owned stores will shut down for a few hours May 29 for racial-bias education for about 175,000 employees.In a supplemental video with the statement, Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson, who has zeroed in on "unconscious bias," said the move comes as they are “committed to being part of the solution,” and that this training “is just one step in a journey that requires dedication from every level of our company and partnerships in our local communities.”
    Read more...
  • iStock/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) -- Almost two months after Dick’s Sporting Goods announced they will no longer be selling assault-style weapons, the company announced it is destroying the unsold stock.“We are in the process of destroying all firearms and accessories that are no longer for sale as a result of our Feb. 28 policy change. We are destroying the firearms in accordance with federal guidelines and regulations,” the company said in a statement to ABC News.In late February, two weeks after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, Dick’s Sporting Goods announced that they would no longer sell assault-style rifles or high capacity magazines. The company also said it would no longer sell firearms or ammunition of anyone under the age of 21 years old.“Following all of the rules and laws, we sold a shotgun to the Parkland shooter in November of 2017. It was not the gun, nor type of gun, he used in the shooting. But it could have been,” the company said in February.Dick’s Sporting Goods had already removed all assault-style rifles from all Dick’s stores after the Sandy Hook shooting but removed them from sale at all 35 Field and Stream stores following the shooting in Parkland.In an interview with George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America, Dick’s Sporting Goods Chairman and CEO Edward Stack said, “We’re staunch supporters of the Second Amendment. I’m a gun owner myself. We’ve just decided that based on what’s happened with these guns, we don’t want to be a part of this story and we’ve eliminated these guns permanently.”Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
    Read more...