Download We need an independent and accessible source of scientific

column
the cure
Caulfield
Timothy
We need an independent
and accessible source of
scientific information.
the cure
The paradoxes
of pop science
S
cience and popular culture have long mixed in unique and productive
ways. Cutting-edge science has inspired great novels, movies, music
and art. But as science becomes a larger part of our cultural landscape,
we are seeing a concomitant increase in the profoundly and paradoxically unscientific use of scientific language and images. The advocates of dubious products, philosophies and therapies frequently lean heavily on scientific-sounding terminology
as a way of capitalizing on the excitement surrounding cutting-edge areas of science, including genetics, stem cells and nanotechnology.
Given that we live in an era when science has never had more of a public profile, this strategy makes tremendous sense — at least from a marketing perspective. But it is also exploitive and misleading and, in the long run, could be detrimental to both science and public trust. This is particularly so since the entities
and individuals who use science to sell rarely turn the lens of scientific inquiry on
the very product they are pitching.
One of the highest-profile examples of the phenomenon of simultaneously
embracing (look at these cutting-edge and science-y-sounding products!) and rejecting (don’t hold us to your rigorous methodological standards!) science is the
anti-aging and beauty industry. This is a massive global market that, by some estimates, will be worth over $100 billion by 2017.
Timothy Caulfield holds the Canada Research Chair in Health
Law and Policy at the University of Alberta and is the author of
The Cure for Everything: Untangling the Twisted Messages
about Health, Fitness and Happiness (2012).
12
OPTIONS POLITIQUES
SEPTEMBRE-OCTOBRE 2013
Among its products are numerous anti-aging services
that leverage the hype around genetics. SkinDNA — a “Wellbeing Genomics” company (whatever that is) — promises
“the pursuit of youth through advanced technology” by the
provision of (completely unproven) “personalized anti-aging skin treatment[s].” There is DNA shampoo that is “genetically superior” and “electrolytic” balanced. There are even
companies that promise genetically targeted cosmetics that
will allow for individualized skin products, a field that has
the impressive-sounding label of “cosmetogenomics.”
All this is nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense.
N
ot surprisingly, companies selling dubious anti-aging
products also frequently exploit the profile of stem cell
research, which is one of the most exciting fields of scientific inquiry, and is also one that continues to receive a large
amount of coverage in the popular press. One Web site, Stem
Cell Beauty Innovations, for example, encapsulates all the
science-language incongruities that have become endemic
in today’s media landscape. The Web site refers to the use of
“pluripotent stem cells” and “transcription factors” that “revitalize” the skin and allow for “increased levels of collagen,
glycoproteins, and elastic fibers in the skin’s extra cellular
matrix” — all for the purpose of “de-aging” the skin.
But amidst all this science-love, the company also explicitly espouses a new-age-y philosophy that seeks to introduce
unique “all-natural anti-aging products.” It is no wonder that,
as the front page of the company’s Web site declares, “Simon
Cowell is obsessed with Sheep Placenta Facials.”
The inconsistent and selective use of the language and images of science is most notoriously seen in the realm of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). On the one hand,
this community seems to increasingly embrace the most cutting-edge of health products, but, on the other, it continues to
largely reject what science says about most complementary and
alternative health treatments: that they don’t work.
Worse, it is not uncommon for CAM practitioners to
explicitly reject a scientific approach to health care, suggesting that the efficacy of their approaches cannot be tested by
the scientific method or that science is somehow interfering
with a holistic approach to the healing process.
One of the best examples of this embrace/reject mentality
is the increasing use of genetic testing by naturopaths and ho-
meopaths. You can get, for example, “electronic homeopathy
bio-energetic medicine,” a process that involves genetic testing
in order to individualize the homeopathic treatment protocols.
The scientific community has long rejected homeopathy and
views it as little more than pseudoscientific quackery. There is
not a shred of evidence that homeopathic remedies work beyond the placebo effect. Similarly, many naturopaths now offer genetic testing for everything from weight loss to “wellness
plans” and, in doing so, reference studies in legitimate science
journals to support the approach. Nonetheless, these same
practitioners ignore research published by the same scientific
community that created the adopted genetic tests that suggests
most naturopathic treatments are of questionable value.
L
et’s be clear: these companies and practitioners want the
best of both worlds. They want the veneer of legitimacy
that comes with the references to cutting-edge science, but
they don’t want to be held to a scientific standard. And they
don’t expect consumers to know what is meant by the skin’s
“cellular matrix” or what “glycoproteins” are; they just want
to create the appearance that their products and services are
somehow linked to real science.
I am not, obviously, arguing that only those who fully embrace the scientific method and all its trappings and
philosophical complexities can use scientific language and
images. But it is profoundly disingenuous, misleading and
potentially harmful to use science jargon — often in a selective and hypocritical manner — to sell products and philosophies that are anything but scientific. Sadly, the growth
of this science-sells phenomenon seems unlikely to slow
down anytime soon. With each new legitimate and wellpublicized advance in some area of science will come new,
and bogus, marketing strategies.
We can’t let these purveyors of nonsense have it both
ways. There are steps we can take to combat the paradoxes of
pop science: more independent and easily accessible sources
of scientific information; an increased emphasis on scientific
literacy within our public school systems; policing of misleading advertising; and, perhaps most important, fostering a
skeptical attitude toward all scientific-sounding claims.
Good science welcomes and thrives under skeptical
scrutiny. If we stick to that principle, pseudoscience and
quackery will, one can hope, wither. n
POLICY OPTIONS
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2013
13