Seven things I learned in 20+ years as a “skincare expert” (and 50+ years as a scientist)
I learned a lot. Here it goes.
1) The skincare industry is slooooooooow to learn.
2) The double whammy: Wasted opportunities (to do good) and primum non nocere (first do no harm) go unheard
3) The taxpayer pays for basic scientific research but doesn’t get to enjoy its fruits.
4) Skincare is not a priority for scientists and doctors unless it’s cancer.
5) Not all advances in basic knowledge will translate into advances in skincare
6) What can we expect from the future?
7) You need practice reading word salads to discover what’s inside a skincare product
1. The skincare industry is slow to learn. Why?
In 2024, a premium cream contains the following :
Water, Butylene Glycol, Meadowfoam Seed Oil, Glycerin, Squalane, Alcohol, Cetearyl Alcohol, Cholesteryl Hydroxystearate, Ascorbyl Glucoside, Behenyl Alcohol, Cetyl Palmitate, Angelica Acutiloba Root Extract, Cnidium Officinale Root Extract, Job’s Tears Seed Extract, Cordyceps Sinensis Extract, Menthol, Sodium Hydroxide, Sodium Methyl Stearoyl Taurate, Xanthan Gum, Ethylparaben, Methylparaben, Propylparaben, Fragrance, Gynostemma Pentaphyllum Leaf Extract, Melothria Heterophylla Extract, Panax Ginseng Root Extract, Citric Acid, Dimethicone, Disodium Phosphate, Hydrogenated Lecithin.
The ingredient list could have been written in 2003, although the preservatives at that time would have been positioned at the end of the list; now, they are “hidden” in the middle. The jar is still a pretty blue, but now the brand name is in Chinese characters. In 2000, the chosen name would have probably sounded French, like Chantecaille, a brand still available with ingredients similar to the Chinese brand, except that the plants chosen for label value are European, like edelweiss instead of ginger.
In other words, “for everything to stay the same, everything must change” (Il Gattopardo).
2. The double whammy: Wasted opportunities to do good, and primum non nocere (first do no harm) goes unheard
Scientific understanding of the skin has increased enormously, elucidating the intricacies of receptors, growth factors, mechanisms of action, and more. And some of this knowledge has been incorporated into products, at least by Skin Actives. But the “consumer” (you and I) haven’t changed their attitude to skin care.
In medical practice, wound care has changed. Skin cancer treatment has changed enormously, and now it’s possible to cure skin melanomas that were deadly just a few years ago.
People still decide with their cave brains at the store: go for the bright lights and the pretty jars. They believe advertising such as “The heated diamond targets those pesky frown lines on the forehead, for the appearance of smoother, more relaxed skin.”. There is no evidence that LEDs can help the skin. On the contrary, light, either high or low energy (short or long wavelength), will lead to heating, oxidation, DNA damage, and overall skin aging.
Here is where the primum non-nocere is ignored. This is easy because no doctors (who swear by the Hippocratic oath) or scientists are involved. No promises are broken. LED, who can go for cents when used in kids’ toys, can be “upgraded” to home skincare devices to make money. Don’t believe the advertising.
Because the government and the agencies involved (FDA) have more important things to do, consumers can’t expect much support from this agency unless a product contains toxic/banned ingredients; these are usually imports from countries that have lax consumer laws and are usually skin-whitening products.
3. The taxpayer pays for basic scientific research but doesn’t get to enjoy its fruits.
Remember that most basic research is done at public institutions like universities and government agencies. We pay for that research with our tax dollars. The fruits of that research are usually converted into medicines by private companies. We end up paying thousands of dollars per month for life-saving medications that were developed using our own money. This is how it will be for a while, but the least we can do is keep abreast of scientific discoveries: the knowledge is paid by us and will affect our lives sooner or later.
4. Skincare is not a priority for scientists and doctors unless it’s skin cancer.
In a parallel world, where effectiveness is a matter of life and death, cancer care has jumped from “shot in the dark” to molecular ID and treatment in the last twenty years. For some cancers, not all, and the progress is not linear; it depends on the mechanisms the cancer cells use to kill the rest of the body. By accepting that all cancers are different (because the cells that originate them are), we have progressed in fighting cancer. Who could have predicted (dreamed!) in 2000 that some types of melanoma could be cured?
In skin care, we are still in the realm of Santa Claus: miracles, essences, gold, and mystic flowers. In a few words, the industry has not progressed. Why? The industry responds to customers’ “needs,” and the customers have not changed. Humans still believe in magic potions and golden elixirs and that “chemicals” are harmful, ignoring the fact that we are made of chemicals. We can blame schools for the lack of understanding of biology, but I think people forget what they learned and go back to ignorance out of laziness. I recommend that people stay up-to-date on scientific advances because science strongly influences our world, even if we try to ignore it (think COVID).
I can see some instances of regression in the industry. Recalls of skin and hair care products because of contamination with obscure bacteria appear daily. Under pressure from “grassroots” groups, some preservatives have been eliminated and replaced by others that may be less effective. In other cases, effective preservatives are now hidden under natural-sounding names.
5. Not all advances in basic science will translate into advances in skincare
Identifying the microorganisms living in our skin up to their DNA sequence is now possible. Instead of discussing acne bacteria in general, now you can identify the subtypes and their metabolism. It’s now inexpensive to sequence DNA, and while we were limited to identifying only those bacteria that could be forced to grow in a Petri dish, now their DNA bits and pieces will do it, leaving no bacteria unidentified. Somebody will try to sell you products based on the sequences of your bacterial DNA. Still, while good for somebody’s pocket, these efforts will tell you nothing about the ingredients that can benefit your skin. The same is true for human DNA sequencing: we are just starting to recognize human mutations that may increase the probability of some cancers and some autoimmune diseases. However, the links between human DNA and skin health are unknown. They will remain unknown for some time, except for nasty diseases caused by a simple mutation like epidermolysis bullosa simplex and epidermolytic hyperkeratosis. Not for rejuvenating your skin, we need more basic research for this more general objective.
6. What can we expect from the future?
I can’t see the future, but I hope the industry will at least use what we already have until the hoped-for science fiction devices appear (see a Star Trek episode for illustration). Epidermal growth factor (EGF) is readily available now, but the few formulators that use EGF ignore that EGF can do very little without the wherewithal. We don’t need heavy scientific data to tell us that EGF can’t build new cells unless you provide essential fatty acids to the skin. Only a well-informed customer will force the formulators to put their act together. Otherwise, it’s the publicity department that makes the rules.
7. Practice removing word salad to discover what’s inside
Keep crossing out words to find out what’s behind the ingredient lists. Plenty of “specialists” keep adding to the word salad, making it harder for the customer to decipher lists designed to fool us. We grew accustomed to “faux fur” and “vegan leather” and started seeing them as benign. We are accustomed to seeing Latin plant names that mean nothing in reality. These practices are not benign. Demand beneficial ingredients and scientific nomenclature. Do this with your dollars: buy science-based skin care.
Hannah
References
Ganceviciene R, Liakou AI, Theodoridis A, Makrantonaki E, Zouboulis CC. Skin anti-aging strategies. Dermatoendocrinol. 2012 Jul 1;4(3):308-19. doi: 10.4161/derm.22804. PMID: 23467476; PMCID: PMC3583892.
DeStefano GM, Christiano AM. The genetics of human skin disease. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2014 Oct 1;4(10):a015172. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a015172. PMID: 25274756; PMCID: PMC4200211.