Erastin concentration wordpress.com (www.genomethicsblog.org) and periodically wrote short posts about various current issues being discussed within academic circles in genetics. The pieces were deliberately structured so that they would be appropriate for a mixed audience including those who knew nothing about genetics through to those currently working in the field. Within the article text—and also next to the article text—appeared a link and an image to the research survey. The intention was that, after reading the blog post, readers would serendipitously see and click on the survey. Each Genomethics blog post was advertised on the linked Genomethics Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn
accounts. In each of these forums AM ‘chatted’ about the blog to encourage followers find more to link to it. AM also maintained a presence on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, joining in with relevant discussions about genomics and signposting followers to related discussion—the https://www.selleckchem.com/products/mm-102.html ultimate aim of this was to increase the number of followers, thereby increasing the available audience who could ultimately access the blog and subsequently the survey, AM also wrote blog posts for other providers, e.g. the Wellcome Trust, GenomesUnzipped,
Cambridge Network, Swan (Syndromes Without a Name UK, a branch of Genetic Alliance UK), Cambridge Science Centre, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. For each of these articles a link was Dichloromethane dehalogenase made to the Genomethics Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn accounts. A link to the survey was also positioned on the landing page for the Decipher website, a site that hosts a consortium of ‘>200 academic clinical centres of genetic medicine and ≥1,600 clinical geneticists and diagnostic laboratory scientists’ (Bragin et al. 2013) and OMIM, which is a database used by clinical, medical and molecular geneticists worldwide (Baxevanis 2012). Google and Facebook adverts A Google Ad account was opened by AM, and multiple advertisements for the survey were created. The adverts appeared each time specific terms were keyed into the Google search engine by
any person using English. The advert appeared on the page, and viewers could choose to click on it; payment was taken per click. AM spent a long time researching the best terms to attach to each advert. Words such as ‘genome’, ‘ethics’ and ‘genetics’ are not popular and only used infrequently, whereas ‘disorders’, ‘mental illness’ and ‘genes’ were more popular search terms worldwide. Thus, these were chosen, and subsequently there were 549,566 appearances of several different adverts that contained various combinations of key words. Collectively, the adverts were clicked on 2,140 times (which cost £553 in total), and from this we received 215 completed surveys (i.e. approximately £2.50 per completed survey) (Fig. 2). Fig. 2 The two most successful adverts used on Google A similar approach to above was used with Facebook.