Imagine this. It's 2086. An earnest young graduate student in anthropology turns on his camera, and turns to the stooped, white-haired gentleman sitting across from him.

"Tell me more about this game 'tag' -- how was it played exactly?"

I'd like someone to launch a well-funded public service campaign to take on one of the less-recognized threats to a healthy pregnancy and healthy infancy. "Pregnancy: More Joy, Less Guilt." "Guilt: Bad for Moms, Bad for Babies." Any deep-pocket volunteers?

I was racing through the Washington Post this morning, trying to finish the A section before it was time to go into border collie mode and start nipping heels (who wants to go to school in June, anyway?), and came across a brief item about a new government survey.

There used to be an aging wooden sign outside my kids' elementary school. It identified the school as an "Early Primary School, Pre-K through Grade 3". Since the school actually goes through Grade 5, and had done so for years before my eldest enrolled, I saw the sign as one of the more benign examples of a school district not quite up to its task. Since then, the sign has rotted away and been removed.

In a paper provocatively titled "Does Television Rot Your Brain?", two University of Chicago economists present what they call "strong evidence against the prevailing wisdom that childhood television viewing causes harm to cognitive or educational development."

Every day, it seems, technology opens up a fertile new market that never existed before. Take online gamers. Certainly a diverse crew, weighted a bit towards the male, but representing a wide range of ages and interests. But three-year-olds? Just never occured to me. That's one of the many ways that I am not like Disney, which is launching a new $50-a-year subscription service for preschoolers.

"Look at me when I'm talking to you!"
"Look me in the eye and tell me where you've been."
"Don't look away when I'm talking to you!"

Seems like we spend an awful lot of time telling kids what to do with their eyes...and most of the time, we're just getting in the way of good communication.

Scientists, for some reason, never seem to rise to the top -- or even very far from the bottom -- of our society's list of role models. Which is odd, because what could be more exciting than trying to answer the really big questions? Today I read something about research coming from an Italian neuroscientist -- Giacomo Rizzolatti of the University of Parma -- that gave me a bad case of white-coat envy. (Rizzolatti's on-line faculty profile includes links to some of his work.)