EP210: Science washing: decoding scientism in the beauty industry

I'm sure you've heard of greenwashing, which is a term that refers to companies making it seem like their products or their operations are environmentally responsible, when really they aren't. And as the influence of companies has grown around the world, we've seen the emergence of other terms used to accuse companies of so called washing, where shoppers feel like these companies are putting on a front for marketing purposes. So other examples include the term blue washing or social Washington, which is a bit like greenwashing but about social responsibility, or pink washing, which refers to companies outwardly supporting the LGBTQ community while doing things to undermine equality. This concept of washing is a really clever one because it suggests that businesses are painting this outward picture that doesn't reflect reality. So I really enjoyed it when I saw an online cosmetic chemistry influencer last year use the term science washing to talk about the beauty industry. Science washing, or the term scientism, which I'll explain later in the episode, refers to companies using scientific terminology to mask pseudoscientific concepts, as just one example. And I feel that that fits in perfectly with the episode that we released here on the Green Beauty Conversations podcast last week when I spoke with Formula Botanica's education manager Anna Green, and we unpicked what medical grade skincare is and also what it isn't, and how it's really used as a marketing term to make shoppers feel like medical grade formulations are of a higher quality than those made by companies who who aren't using that claim. So in today's episode I want to look at a few other examples of what I personally feel falls under the definition of science washing or scientism and talk about the way that the entire beauty industry likes to blind us with spurious scientific claims to make us feel like we need to buy their products. I am getting back on my soapbox this week, so let's get started with the episode. Hi, it's Lorraine Dallmeyer, Chartered environmentalist, biologist and CEO of award winning online organic cosmetic formulation school Formula Botanica. I host the Green Beauty Conversations podcast and these are my green beauty opinions in which I share my takeaways from the podcast interview we released last week and set you a challenge to make the green beauty sector a better place. If you want to be the first to hear all of my latest episodes, make sure you subscribe to this podcast. So, science washing, what is it? Well, this term stems from the word scientism, which the dictionary defines as a thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists. In other words, scientism or science washing, whatever you want to call it, is about making people feel like you're saying something that would be said or done by a scientist. Now, imagine that you want something to sound overly scientific, for instance, or you want to make something sound credible. You could then apply lots of scientific terminology to it. That would be scientism. And that's also why this word scientism, is typically viewed negatively. Now, at this point, I want to briefly talk about the philosopher and Professor Susan Hark to you, who specialises in philosophy, the humanities and law in the US And Professor Hark has defined her six signs of scientism. I found her work a fascinating read. I also recognized a lot about the beauty industry in there. So I would ask you to indulge me today as we have a brief look at Susan Hark's six signs of scientism. And I'm going to run you through some examples that I've personally seen in the cosmetic sector. So Professor Hark's first sign of scientism is the honorific term of the word science itself. What this means is we put the word science on a pedestal, we look up to it. You'll have seen this in hundreds and hundreds of beauty adverts that say things like proven by science, supported by science, done by scientists, scientist approved. And similarly, there will have been thousands of examples of people conversely challenging traditional herbal remedies for the skin and hair by saying things like, do you have any scientific evidence to back that up? And to be fair, I have done this too. But what ends up happening in these situations is that then some claims are viewed as unscientific and therefore no good. Remember, we're putting science on a pedestal here. Interestingly, Professor Hart even mentions traditional plant medicines and remedies in her work as an example here. Just because something hasn't been researched doesn't mean it doesn't work. And I think that message is going to resonate with a lot of my listeners today. So that is the first sign of scientism, and I think it also applies perfectly to the podcast episode we released last week on Medical Grade Skincare, which is another such word. The second sign of scientism, according to Susan Hark, is inappropriately borrowed scientific trappings in the hope of looking scientific. Well, this has the beauty industry written all over it, and I think the most obvious one is the way that the beauty industry uses the white lab coat to blind us all with science. Let's not forget about beauty marketer extraordinaire Helena Rubinstein, who was the first to wear and use white lab coats in her beauty marketing. It was genius. And I should add that I think Helena was a phenomenal entrepreneur and marketer. And as someone who also works in marketing, I have great respect for what she's achieved. But that message with the white lab coat is fundamentally flawed and should never have been allowed because it created the beginnings of the cosmetics industry monster that we live with today. The third sign of scientism is a preoccupation with the problem of demarcation. So let me explain this one to you. This is about people who become slightly preoccupied, or dare I say it, even obsessed about rooting out so called pseudoscience. And they want a really clear boundary between science and everything else. And I do have some sympathy with this one. The issue that Professor Hark describes is that science doesn't always have as clear boundaries as people want it to have. It's moving, it's changing. She uses the term fuzzy in her work. Science can be fuzzy at the edges. But she does make one fantastic point that needs reiterating. Rather than denigrating pseudoscience, we should just call out poorly conducted science for what it is. The term pseudoscience is thrown around a lot in the cosmetics industry, and to be fair, I have done some slinging myself. But rather than having this us versus them debate, perhaps what we need is to simply challenge claims and then seek more data to validate or refute those claims. One of my guests on the podcast recently claimed right at the end of his interview, he threw it in like a curveball and he said, the opposite of clean beauty is science. Now, I disagreed with that statement. Then we didn't go heavily into detail because we were at the end of the interview. And I still disagree with it now. And you know what? I think that fits in perfectly into this third sign of scientism. So the fourth sign of scientism is the question for the scientific method. And this means people are debating what the perfect method should be for science. And of course, there is no perfect method. It depends entirely on what you're researching. The fifth sign of scientism is the way that we look to the sciences for answers to questions beyond its scope, where we confuse science with ethics. This is an enormous topic and not one for today's podcast. So I'm going to move on to the final sign of scientism, which I think has the cosmetics industry written literally all over it. And that sign is denigrating the non scientific. Now, I see this at Formula Botanica every day, where people feel that if you're not a chemist, you can't formulate. And we've been absolutely slammed by angry chemists who feel upset when we say you don't have to be a chemist to formulate. And what they think they're hearing us say is that their qualifications are invalid, which is of course, absolutely not what we're implying at all. You can formulate if you're a chemist. You can also formulate if you're not a chemist. And we don't want people to feel like they're being denigrated just because they don't have a science background. It's also why we've made our online courses at Formula Botanica so accessible to people, so they can become formulators. And that is my whirlwind tour of Susan Hark's sixth Sign of Scientism. It's a fascinating read. You can find her materials online and I do recommend you check them out for yourself and see how much of the beauty industry that you recognize in them. And I think if we look critically at the beauty industry, I would go as far as controversially saying I think this entire sector is guilty of a degree of scientism dating all the way back to the first shrewd beauty marketers over 100 years ago. And this is possibly also why we've seen the rise of the so called skin telectual, because everyone feels like they need a PhD nowadays to understand what the beauty industry is even talking about half the time. So my challenge to you for this week is to remember that science isn't a perfect mechanism. When you hear people argue about scientific methods, or you hear people calling out the people themselves who are undertaking the science, or you see scientific terminology and symbols used inappropriately, will you see any of the examples I've talked about today? Just remember that the scientific method itself is a process of observing, asking questions and seeking answers through tests and experiments. And you can take part in that too. Thank you for listening to my Green Beauty opinions. Remember to visit the Formula botanica website@formulabotanica.com to try our free online formulation course. And if you haven't subscribed yet to the Green Beauty Conversations podcast, please make sure you do so now in your favorite podcast app. Leave me a five star review if you enjoy the conversations I host and I'll be back soon with my next episode. Sam.