Analysis Critical Thinking Fashion Science

Scientism or “Science-Washing” in Beauty – Lab Muffin Beauty Science

Scientism or

That is an amended model of a collection initially revealed on my Instagram account @labmuffinbeautyscience.

As science has gotten extra fashionable, scientism is beginning to present up extra in magnificence advertising and the sweetness group.

Scientism, which I name “science-washing” (though apparently nobody says that besides me, however I’m vainly making an attempt to make it occur) is science utilized in extra. It consists of:

  • utilizing science in areas the place science can’t inform you the reply
  • making claims past what the proof exhibits
  • eagerness to simply accept claims that appear scientific with out important appraisal

Scientism is a type of pseudoscience that may be a bit trickier to identify, as a result of it likes science. No – it loves science. An excessive amount of. Science needs to attempt being associates first, however scientism has ordered their wedding ceremony cake and named their 5 grandkids already.

Thinker Susan Haack has provide you with 6 indicators of scientism, and I feel they spotlight a few of the widespread points that come up within the magnificence group relating to discussing the science behind magnificence merchandise, notably skincare.

As Haack wrote: “we have to keep away from each under-estimating the worth of science, and over-estimating it.”

Science is nice. I’m clearly an enormous fan of science. However simply because we like science doesn’t imply we should always settle for it uncritically. Scientism turns individuals off science as a result of it’s quite dogmatic and evangelical, so it’s counterproductive.

Right here is my tackle the indicators of scientism, as you’ll see them within the magnificence group (word: I’ve no philosophy background, please forgive my feeble makes an attempt).

That is the attraction to authority fallacy – simply because one thing is related to science doesn’t imply it’s:

  1. related to “good”, strong science
  2. answerable by the present scientific proof
  3. answerable by science in any respect
  4. truly supported by science⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀


“There’s scientific proof that X ingredient works” (as an alternative of “convincing/strong proof”)

Scientific proof isn’t all equal.

There are in vitro research (often on cells) and there are animal research, there are medical trials on people and there are observational research, there are peer-reviewed research and there are producer research, there are totally different medical finish factors and choice standards and pattern sizes and remedy protocols… and that’s solely the tip of the iceberg. Simply because a research exists doesn’t imply that the product is “science-based”.

Not solely that, the relevance of scientific proof to a specific state of affairs isn’t black and white – simply because there’s robust proof that tretinoin works for some types of pimples doesn’t imply that X model’s 1% retinol cream will work in your pores and skin particularly.

“Scientifically confirmed”

Science doesn’t show concepts – it builds proof to help theories, however absolute proof doesn’t occur.

There are issues the place the scientific proof is so robust that it will take an unbelievable quantity of proof to point out the other (e.g. the Earth just isn’t carried on the again of an enormous turtle, homeopathy doesn’t work). However that is virtually by no means the case in magnificence and skincare – “scientifically confirmed” is often only a advertising phrase that signifies that somebody someplace might have accomplished a survey sooner or later.

“I’m a scientist/physician, subsequently you need to simply take my phrase for it”

That is the basic attraction to authority fallacy – simply because somebody is a scientist doesn’t imply that:

  1. what they are saying is supported by scientific proof, or that
  2. what they are saying outdoors of the realm of science is extra smart/rational/no matter than what anybody else says.

See e.g.

  • Linus Pauling (Nobel Laureate chemist who believed sufficient vitamin C might remedy something)
  • James Watson (Nobel Laureate biologist who nonetheless believes that black individuals have decrease IQs, regardless of all opposing proof)
  • Andrew Wakefield (former physician, father of the anti-vax motion)
  • Physician Oz (a 2014 BMJ research discovered that lower than ⅓ of his recommendation was backed by plausible proof)

I discover myself by chance utilizing these phrases typically, principally out of laziness – it’s a nasty behavior, and a tough one to shake!

(On a associated observe, because the attraction to authority is convincing, I’m firmly of the opinion that for those who’re a scientist or physician making statements about science, you’ve a duty to factcheck, and be clear whenever you’re saying one thing that’s supported by the proof, or if it’s simply your hunch… however that’s an opinion piece for an additional time.)


That is the place issues that SEEM sciencey are used, even once they aren’t truly all that scientific or applicable.

“Scientific” strategies

It’s actually tempting to focus solely on measurable information with regards to one thing as subjective and variable as how properly magnificence merchandise work, even in conditions the place arduous knowledge isn’t as helpful and related as somebody’s subjective expertise when utilizing a product.

Examples in magnificence and skincare:

  • Reviewing merchandise by taking a look at their ingredient lists with out truly making an attempt them out – typically with out even seeing the product in individual!
  • Utilizing comedogenicity scores to decide on merchandise, even once they’ve been discovered to not mirror actual life expertise. Additionally: throwing merchandise out due to the comedogenicity scores, even when they have been high-quality earlier than.

Associated publish: The right way to Use Comedogenicity Scores (with Video)

  • Favouring the precision of pH probes over the accuracy of pH strips. Precision with out accuracy is like when you realize the time somebody was born, however not the yr. Additionally utilizing pH meters with unsuitable samples (too thick, emulsions with oils on the surface).
  • Evaluating sunscreen effectiveness by the odds of lively elements or making an attempt to foretell UVAPF utilizing the BASF Sunscreen Simulator, somewhat than wanting on the labelled SPF
  • Wanting solely at lively ingredient percentages to determine whether or not or not a product is sweet worth

“Scientific research have proven…”, adopted by stuff that the research didn’t present

Scientism typically exhibits up when papers and research are referenced, with out understanding their relevance to the subject at hand. Sadly scientific literature isn’t all that straightforward to know!


  • When in vitro knowledge is used as proof to help one thing engaged on pores and skin, or being dangerous to pores and skin. Cells remoted in glass wells don’t work the identical as pores and skin!
  • Quoting abstracts of papers with out studying the precise paper. Abstracts don’t typically precisely seize the nuances of the knowledge contained in the paper, and aren’t meant to be an alternative to the complete paper – they’re typically made to sound “juicier” so that you simply’ll be enticed to learn the complete paper.
  • Assuming that “vital enchancment” means “giant enchancment”. In scientific papers, “statistically vital” doesn’t imply vital within the regular sense of the phrase.⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
  • Ignoring whether or not the dose utilized in a research is reasonable with regular use. The portions utilized in many research (particularly animal research) are a lot greater than you’d encounter in actual life, so it’s typically unrealistic to anticipate the identical results in actual life.
  • Utilizing the variety of research cited as a sign of how plausible a declare is, even when the research aren’t related or have methodological issues. High quality is extra essential than amount!

Not questioning issues that sound technical and “sciencey”

There’s additionally a bias that we’ve got in the direction of repeating and never questioning issues that sound extra technical:

  • Use of fancy terminology that isn’t truly utilized by dermatologists or scientists (“sebaceous filaments” “fungal pimples” “moisture and hydration are totally different” “moisture barrier”)
  • Counter-intuitive recommendation, like that SPF 50 is simply a bit bit higher than SPF 30, or that chemical sunscreens have to sink in and activate to work

Associated Submit: Prime 7 Sunscreen and SPF Myths

(Observe: Haack’s rationalization of this targeted on “arduous” sciences calling the “tender” sciences pseudoscientific, so I’ve deviated from the unique supply to suit it into the sweetness context.)

Typically there’s a bent for individuals to shortly dismiss manufacturers as pseudoscientific in the event that they’ve stated something inaccurate prior to now. Each occasionally I get requested, “How are you going to use X model once they stated Y prior to now? Aren’t you a scientist? Are you being paid to endorse them?”

My reply: if I cancelled each model that stated something unscientific prior to now, I’d be utilizing perhaps 1 product. And I’d need to cancel myself.

The issue is, this example is never that black and white. It’s truly actually troublesome to remain 100% correct on the science on a regular basis.

There are a couple of causes for this. The large ones:

lab blood samples

1. Science is all the time evolving.

Cosmetics and skincare isn’t a very well-researched subject, so a single high-quality research can massively change what we find out about specific elements or formulations. Probably the greatest issues about science is that it modifications with altering proof.

2. There’s a LOT of skincare science.

I stated skincare wasn’t well-researched, however there’s nonetheless a metric buttload of research. Anticipating everybody to get it proper each time is unrealistic (though I don’t assume it’s an excessive amount of for manufacturers to get primary and regulation-related issues proper).

three. Advertising.

Whereas a model may very properly know that mineral oil is ok, they’d be placing themselves at an enormous drawback in the event that they didn’t word that their product is “free from mineral oil” when all of their rivals do. Most individuals who purchase magnificence merchandise aren’t savvy sufficient to to via the components listing, and even seek for higher info on “poisonous” components (although I hope that is altering!).

So whereas I’m hesitant to make use of and have manufacturers that cross the unscientific/fearmongering line too incessantly or in a approach that encourages unsafe behaviour, I don’t see the purpose in a hard-line stance like “I solely use scientific skincare merchandise”.

I’m skipping Signal four as a result of it’s concerning the scientific technique, which isn’t actually necessary within the context of magnificence.

I’m combining indicators 5 and 6 as a result of they’re very strongly related to one another.

“In line with science, is X product value it?”

This query isn’t actually answerable by science.

I feel it’s develop into a bit fashionable to dismiss issues in skincare and wonder that don’t have an apparent lively perform, or a decrease focus than a less expensive product as “pseudoscience”, or a rip-off, or filled with “inactive fillers”. However the quantity of lively components and the INCI record – whether or not the product goes to work, on the primary degree – is just one consideration if you’re on the lookout for a product.

Right here’s an analogy: meals.

Positive, probably the most primary uncooked components are in all probability going to be the most cost effective. However can you’re employed out how a lot you take pleasure in a meal simply from that? Will the lasagne with zero% water be the one you take pleasure in consuming probably the most? Will the lasagne with probably the most salt be the one which’s the most effective worth for cash?

Issues like packaging, comfort, scent and texture are essential. There’s no level in shopping for a product that you simply gained’t use as a result of it’s too fiddly, smells dangerous, is tough to unfold, or burns your pores and skin as a result of it’s too concentrated. Science can inform you if it’s more likely to work, however it could possibly’t inform you if one thing is value it to you personally.

Needless to say all of this doesn’t imply that science doesn’t belong in magnificence and skincare! It undoubtedly does. Anecdotal proof is all the time much less dependable than medical trials, and in vitro research can do an superior job of explaining some issues… however science solely works when it’s related, when the appropriate bits are used, and with recognition of its limits.

Hill S at Skeptical Inquirer, Over-reliance on Science

Haack S, Six indicators of scientism, Logos and Episteme 2012, three, 75-95. DOI: 10.5840/logos-episteme20123151

About the author