Is Cosmetic Science Really "Bad"? Part II: Detecting Baloney Science

By: Johann W. Wiechers, PhD, JW Solutions

Posted: August 25, 2009

page 5 of 5

Sometimes, reviewers have personal reasons for rejecting a paper; for example, when they work on the same subject as the author. Also, many papers are rejected simply because they do not offer novel information--the majory of cosmetic science papers are more descriptive than explanatory, and while it may not always be novel, that does not make it bad science. Within the limited pages of a printed journal, however, it may not offer interesting new reading material and therefore it is not published.

Regarding Shermer's third question, this author can only conclude that the cosmetics industry is not any better or any worse than other industries involving commercial science. Three of the ten characteristics differentiating good from bad science have been reviewed here. In this author's view, the cosmetics industry scores neutral on the first question, below average on the second question, and neutral again on the third question.

Again, Goldacre has a point but there are seven more characteristics to be discussed before it can be determined whether cosmetic scientists are as bad as they are portrayed. Read C&T Today in September for the next installment of this series.

Prof. Johann W. Wiechers, PhD 
Independent consultant for cosmetic science, JW Solutions 
Scientific advisor, Cosmetics & Toiletries magazine
Gasthuispolderweg 30, 2807 LL Gouda
Netherlands
johann.wiechers@versatel.nl
www.jwsolutions.com