The DIY guide to spotting bad science in adverts

Some people have asked me about whether products they've seen in adverts actually work or not. Mostly ones I've never heard of because I usually get my toiletries from Savers. What I have told them is this: you don't need an expert to tell you whether a product works or not. Just as you should be wary of a celeb endorsing a product you should probably be equally wary of people like me telling you it doesn't work! Science is not so complicated that you couldn't figure it out, if you know what to look for.

This is my guide to being sceptical of the use of science in adverts.

1. Check whether those "studies" are proper clinical trials or consumer surveys. When as advert says "studies have shown", it doesn't mean much. If you can't see any evidence of a clinical trial be suspicious. A survey can be someone whizzing around an office asking people for their thoughts; not very scientific. A clinical trial should use a rigorous method to test whether something works (e.g. product X gets rid of spots) by eliminating other possible causes of an effect. Design of clinical trials is a long topic, but the basics, if you want to know, are that:
• there should be some control group (e.g. some people don't get given product X but a blank product)
• the people involved in the study shouldn't know whether they have been given product X or the blank (this gets rid of bias - a person knowingly using product X may assume it will work and report positive results because of that)
• the way in which people are allocated into groups to get product X or the blank is randomised (this also gets rid of bias, e.g. product X isn't given to the people who had less spots to start with anyway, meaning you'd get a more positive result). 
2. If it's a survey, look at the numbers. Surveys gain credibility if they are representative of a group of people. If a survey finds that 86% of women were happy with a face cream, you may think great - it works! But if that 86% was 43 women out of 50, the numbers are probably too low to mean much. There are tens of millions of women in the UK, does a sample group of 50 really represent us? There are lots of other problems with surveys, but the numbers do tend to be put in the small print of adverts so that's an easy one to look out for.
3. Listen to the wording. Does skin serum make women's skin more supple or do women report that it makes their skin feel more supple? I call these woolly words; they leave so much room for ambiguity. They don't really mean anything, it's just opinions masquerading as science.
4. Ignore the buzzy scientific images. They often mean nothing and don't prove that something works. Just another selling tool.
5. Ignore jazzy scientific jargon. Yes some of the words are real scientific terms, but others are not. Pantene shampoos contain "Pro-V" - what is that exactly? Well in this case it stands for pro-vitamin B5, a common ingredient in many shampoos. Nowt special about Pantene.The ultimate tool for busting through the jargon is Google, so use it!
6. No cosmetic can stop wrinkles permanently. This seems easy to forget with the constant bombardment of convincing advertising, but ultimately only surgical methods can get rid of wrinkles. Some creams may reduce the wrinkly look for a short while, but that's all. So if you want that cream because the packaging is attractive or you like the smell/feel of it, knock yourself out. Just don't fool yourself into believing it will reverse time on your face and be £100 out of pocket to boot.

Well I'm sure I've left things off this list, but it is 2am after all! I also realise I've focused mainly on the beauty product spectrum of adverts, but as we all know, these are the worst for using science to market spurious claims. Do you have your own tips? Please share in the comments section.

Long hiatus

I've been incredibly lazy at keeping up my little blog and to anyone who keeps an eye on it, apologies! It's partly because I haven't had much rant in me the last few months. Thankfully there aren't too many irritating adverts. However there is a niggling little ad campaign called "the Science behind the beauty" that's got me going and I will be posting a grisly dissection soon.

If you haven't seen it, have a look at this one for example:

Oh Anna Richardson, I quite liked you on the Sex Education Show.

Shoes for perky bums

Some of you will know that I have a bee in my bonnet about fitness shoes. You know the ones I mean. It started with MBTs  that were promoted as an "anti-shoe". Then we had Reebok Re-Tone trainers. You can't have missed the TV advert for Re-Tone. It featured about a hundred hypnotically bouncing perky bums and long legs. You probably didn't even notice the shoes to start with. OK I couldn't resist watching it again on YouTube so here it is. Try to concentrate on the shoes, I dare you.


Next in  line were Fit Flops, a craze that seems to have coincided beautifully with the summer - kudos to the Fit Flops marketing manager. Ladies, it's your dream come true! Now not only can you look cool this summer, your shoes can make you fit! How nice of you to combine two of our most important and all-consuming obsessions.


Finally, Skechers have got onto this bandwagon, with Shape-Ups. 


All these shoes (MBT people, they're still shoes in my book) share broadly the same marketing claim: to improve posture and fitness through working your body a bit harder than normal shoes. What I want to know is whether these claims are backed up by evidence. Unfortunately, my inquiries have been rather fruitless, as you will see. Which is a shame as it's the first time I've ever contacted companies to ask for the evidence behind marketing claims.


First I emailed Reebok to ask about their shoes. My email said:




Dear Sir/Madam
 
I am gathering evidence on toning trainers (including Reebok Retone/Easytone and Fit Flops) for my blog. I am particularly interested in the clinical evidence behind the marketing claims that Easytone/Reetone trainers improve muscle tone/strength and improve fitness. For example the claims in this advert: http://blog.fitnessfootwear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/reetone21.jpg.
 
I was unable to find any references to clinical trials/scientific experiments that support the use of Reetone/Easytone trainers for muscle toning on your website and I would be very grateful if you could send me the original studies. 
 
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
 
Kind regards,
Sabre


I got an auto-reply saying:

Dear Sir or Madam:

We have received materials from you that appear to include an unsolicited idea for our consideration.

While we genuinely appreciate your interest in our company, please be advised that neither Reebok International Ltd (“Reebok”), nor any of its subsidiary or affiliated companies, accepts or reviews unsolicited idea submissions including designs, marketing concepts, or inventions.  In accordance with this policy, none of the materials received from you have been reviewed or evaluated by Reebok.

Please do not send any further unsolicited ideas to Reebok as such submissions will not be reviewed or evaluated.

Sincerely,

Reebok International Ltd

I emailed again but with no further success. Bollocks to you too Reebok!

The Fit Flops people were marginally more helpful. Having emailed them with:

Dear Sir/Madam

I am gathering evidence on toning shoes for my blog which looks at the science behind consumer products. I have looked at the FitFlop website in detail and while I am pleased that there is some explanation of the science behind the products (this is sadly the exception rather than the norm), I would like more information please. I was unable to find references to published clinical research that supports the claims that FitFlops can have health benefits and would appreciate if you could send me the original studies (or full references for them).

In addition it was unclear whether the claims were based on clinical evidence or on consumer testimonials. I would be very grateful if (as well as sending me links to original studies) you could clarify the origins  (clinical evidence or testimonials) for the following claims:
  1.Reduce back stress
2. Reduce joint stress (knees, hip joints and ankles)
3. Increase muscle activation (up to 16% for womens hamstrings, up to 11% for womens lower legs, up to 30% for womens bottoms, up to 16% for mens quadricep muscles, up to 11% for mens calf muscles)

I found the above claims on  http://www.fitflop.com/benefits/. 

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Kind regards,
Sabre

I got a reply, from a real person this time, saying:

Dear Sabre,

Thanks so much for getting in touch and for your interest in our shoes. Have you seen this webpage which details the results and studies that our shoes have undergone? http://www.fitflop.com/benefits/research/  

Kind regards,

Natasha

Sigh. I emailed back reiterating that yes I had seen their website and wanted the original studies. I also emailed the two people, Dr Philip Graham Smith and Richard Jones at Salford University, who are mentioned on their website as having independently tested the technology. No reply at all, and all these emails were sent over a month ago.

All I've managed to establish so far is that the marketing is great but the customer service is woeful. Unable to actually look at the evidence, particularly for Fit Flops (which I want to buy!), I'm going to cobble together some kind of opinion anyway, based on what information I do have.

As I mentioned in my email to the Fit Flops company, my main interest is in the origin of the health claims made. Are they the result of proper controlled trials of some sort or are they based on surveys and customer feedback? This is what prompted my BS-o-meter, (taken from Fit Flops website):

"Please note that on page 10 of the Spring Summer brochure, we would like to clarify that the claim “you can improve your posture” is derived from hundreds of FitFlop wearer testimonials we have received."

One might ask why it matters that claims are based on testimonials. After all, if people say it works, where's the problem? The problem with surveys is that:

1. the group of people surveyed have a vested interest in the shoes working for them. After all, they've spent money on these shoes and so they are more likely to give a favourable response

2. we don't know how testimonials were sought or if people were randomly selected for views. Therefore we don't know what kinds of bias are present

3. The improvements are self-reported. No health professional has provided an independent assessment of whether the customer's posture or fitness has actually improved

4. There may be hundreds of people giving positive testimonials, but what is the overall number of customers? If a hundred customers out of a thousand are satisfied, that's only 10%.

5. We don't know if customers see improvements because of a placebo effect. Does posture improve because of the shoes or because after buying them, a customer starts walking a little bit taller and straighter? Expectation of an improvement can actually be the sole cause of improvement.

Without the information to hand, it's difficult to say whether there is evidence for health benefits. I have however found an excellent article that evaluates the pros and cons of Fit Flops and MBTs. I recommend you read it. I would add to the article by pointing out the risk of wearing fitness shoes as a substitute for proper exercise. This is a very real danger for lazy people like me. If they don't work and you give up proper exercise you'll end up less fit, not more.

The bottom line (geddit?) is that if they're comfortable and you like the way they look, buy them. But don't pin your hopes on them making you fit because it's difficult to find the evidence to prove it. I know it's jumping to a conclusion, but I do feel that if the evidence was solid, the Fit Flops people would have been happy to send me full references to published research.

I've just realised I didn't put a picture in this post. So here's something to counter all those female bums (cos bad science should be an equal opportunity activity).

Are feminist skeptics "woo filled idiots"?

My command of the social media site Twitter has grown and over the last month particularly I have come across or engaged in discussions about women and their relationship with science. My ramblings below are prompted by a post on the Blag Hag blog called The more feminists mistrust science, the more women look like fools. This was a response to another article published at I Blame the Patriarchy on a scientific study looking at the effects of porn. (BTW I'm not getting into a porn debate!)

I have also recently become aware of groups of people calling themselves "skeptics" who meet in pubs across the UK and take a critical view on pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo like homeopathy and astrology. I've never been to one of their meetings but they're held all around the country. Recently a group called Ladies Who Do Skepticism formed along a similar vein. Recent discussions on Twitter have focused on why women don't get more involved in skepticism and come to these meetings.

So here are my thoughts.

Science has historically been the preserve of men (as have most professional and academic fields). The situation has improved somewhat but I am aware that the numbers of women in science is still pathetically low, particularly at the top of professions. If there isn't a glass ceiling then women must be very good mimes. The factors involved are numerous, and I won't go into them. However I think that our perceptions of who does science still hasn't changed much. For example, Google search for "scientist" and you usually get something like this or this. Google also suggests the related search "female scientist" which feeds into the assumption that male is the default setting for a scientist (search for nurse and Google suggests "male nurse").  I think that may women who are not scientists don't see science as something that affects them, or at least not as something to get involved with. This is true of non-scientist males too, but the male scientist stereotype is an extra barrier for women.

I've also noticed a certain aggression in some of the skeptical discussions that take place online. While aggression is not an exclusively male trait, I have picked up on an element of machismo and derision towards those who do not agree and I can see how that might be off-putting to women more than men. I haven't been to a skeptics meeting but I'd be interested in seeing for myself whether this is true in real life.

Anyway back to the Blag Hag article, in which the blogger (Jen) basically attacks Jill (from I Blame the Patriarchy) for questioning the validity of a a study on the effects of porn on men. It's interesting because Jen appears to see herself as the voice of scientific reason, defending science from "those feminists who distrust science". And yet a look at Jill's article shows that Jill was simply approaching the subject at hand with a healthy dose of skepticism. The really fascinating part is when  Jen says:

"Every time a feminist treats science like some great big boogeyman, she makes all feminists and women look foolish and ignorant."


I have a big problem with this statement. Do we really have to simply accept any scientific study for fear of looking like "woo filled idiots screaming conspiracy theories"? Why does questioning make us look stupid rather than skeptical? Are male skeptics accused of being foolish and ignorant too?


I actually think the right place is a middle ground and I can find points in both articles to agree and disagree with. Some, but of course not all, scientists and science experiments are misogynistic. But Jen's overreaction to healthy skepticism from a fellow feminist is wrong and serves to discourage women from skepticism. Women are constantly being bombarded by crap science, whether it is surveys on sexual happiness, creams for prolonging youth or all-natural yoghurts to feed the young 'uns. Even if we get it wrong, we shouldn't hold back from questioning the science if we think something's amiss. We should rush to hold those who conduct and benefit from science to account. 


I want to comment also on intuition. Whether it is skepticism, experience or simply (my favourite) an internal bullshit-o-meter, we all need something to prompt us to start questioning where a problem may not be obvious. All of these things make up what I like to think of as intuition, and therefore I don't know why intuition is seen as such a dirty "emotional" thing. What's important is that intuition leads to rational scrutiny. I want to add that I don't think emotion and science are mutually exclusive. Scientists are passionate, they are defensive, they get excited, they are competitive and their work can be biased by emotions and beliefs. So let's not act like science is always cold and rational, because often it isn't. 

To sum up (because I could ramble on forever), I'd say the following are reasons why women aren't more involved in skepticism (questioning bad science).

1. Science isn't by female non-scientists seen as "for us" because of pervasive stereotypes and male domination
2. There is a lot of bad science targetted specifically at women out there. This may have the effect of women building up some kind of immunity and an ability (or need) to simply ignore it all
3. Questioning what appears to be science may draw negative reactions from others and accusations of being anti-science
4. The idea that science is cold and logical combined with the message that logic is for men and emotion is for women
5. Most importantly,  there aren't enough women doing science. This is by far the biggest problem. You don't need to be a scientist to be a science sceptic but it helps, not least with having the confidence to question.

Hey it's not all doom and gloom. Have a look at some drawings by schoolchildren of scientists before and after visiting labs and talking to scientists. If this doesn't cheer you up and inspire hope, nothing will.

L'Oreal Youth Code

Alright, I said I wasn't going to go for the low hanging fruit with this blog and I am trying to steer away from talking about anti-wrinkle products, I really am. But that doesn't stop me becoming infuriated, as I was this week when I saw an advert for L'Oreal Youth Code. Not only was the pseudoscientific tripe in front of me, it was in an ad break for Genius of Britain, a historical look at some of Britain's past scientific genius. The juxtaposition made it seem extra insulting. There really is no safe place!

The headline is "inspired by the science of genes". L'Oreal's website has an explanation of the science here. Gene expression is described as occurring when skin genes are activated following stress. In young skin this happens more quickly than in older skin, indicating that it takes longer to respond the stressor. Having "discovered" this wonderful science, L'Oreal developed the Youth Code Range, which is:

"Enriched with patented Pro-Gen (TM) Technology.

Applied daily, the moisturising formula helps improve the skin's ability to behave more youthfully" (ref)

Ah Pro-Gen Technology, where have you been all my life? And more importantly, what the heck are you? Further digging reveals that Pro-Gen Technology is supposed to speed up the rate of gene expression and contains biolysate. The "code" part of Youth Code refers to the claim that this cream will help your skin reset its genetic code.

Here comes the science bit.

Genes contain information. Gene expression is what happens when that information is used to make a product, usually a protein. Proteins then go away and do get things done in body cells. This whole process is fundamental to all life, it makes the body work. Gene expression happens almost everywhere in the body and so I'm OK with the idea that external stress can lead to gene expression occurring, because so many things can require proteins to be made. The genetic code refers to the sequence of animo acids that make the gene; the blueprint.

The link between this science and what L'Oreal have put into Youth Code is not explained anywhere, and yet that's the crucial part of how this cream should work. That in itself suggests something fishy. I couldn't figure out what Pro-Gen Technology is, but I did find this handy list of ingredients and what they're used for. It's interesting to see that ascorbyl glucoside is whitening, but that's another can of worms!

Taking a historical view of skincare products and science, it seems that products are always peddled to consumers based on the trendy science of the day, be it radioactivity, chemicals, hormones or genetics. Today's trend is of course genetics and it appears that L'Oreal have caught the public fascination and are cashing in. Simple as that. There is no evidence that a cream can tinker with gene expression to produce more youthful skin, and if a cream could affect my genetic code I'd be highly concerned because that would be tinkering with my very DNA and causing genetic mutations. No thanks.

But wait, there are proven results! Oops, it's a consumer test not real scientific evidence.
 
"PROVEN RESULTS



Proven and confirmed by women:
- Skin looks rejuvenated: 78% agree*
- Wrinkles appear reduced: 69% agree*
- Features appear rested: 71% agree*

*Consumer test, 229 women"

At least L'Oreal are careful never to claim that their products reduce wrinkles, just that they appear to. Skin isn't actually rejuvenated, it just looks like it. The "features appear rested" made me laugh because I have no idea what that even means.

Oh L'Oreal. Ever since I went to the Science Museum lates event you sponsored you've really been getting under my skin.

I guess some things never change

I came across this advert today for facial massage from 1926.

The small text reads:

"Too bad she doesn't try to remain the girl her husband fell in love with. The change is so gradual that you never see it. But your friends do.
Then - "How young Lois looks. Wonder how she does it." You'd hardly believe that even Harper Method facial massages could work such wonders.
But they do. Of course a "facial" must be done with science and skill. Delicate muscles and fine aristocratic skin should never be entrusted to any except trained experts.
That's why the women whose glowing youth you envy take care to have their facial massage regularly at a Harper Method shop. There Harper Method graduates, with secrets learned during 38 years of success, help to keep you looking young, attractive - charming alike to family and friends.


Harper Method preparations can be purchased in convenient sizes for home use at all Harper Method shops"


And right at the bottom it says:

"Free - Book on "Scientific care of hair and scalp". Fully illustrated. Secrets every woman should know."


It reminds me of the Harry Enfield comedy sketches "Women, know your limits". If you don't know what I'm talking about, watch this.

It's a bit frightful to realise that although marketing has become much more subtle, the underlying message hasn't really changed since the 1920s.

Women: avoid looking your age and trust in science!

The Science of Beauty

Anyone who follows my tweets will know that I was quite angry last week following my visit to the Science Museum's "Lates" event. Science Museum Lates are free, adult-only evening events held once a month. As well as giving visitors an opportunity to experience the Science Museum without children and with booze (a joy I must admit), the events are themed. Last week's theme was "The Science of Beauty", and it was sponsored by L'Oreal UK and Ireland. Yeah I know, warning bells are ringing already.

The flyer for the event can be found here. The programme included:

• What Makes a Beauty Product: an exhibition on beauty research and development from L'Oreal and the chance to learn what your skin says about you
• Table-top experiments: discover how to make your own beauty potion
• Why Does Beauty Matter: debate with a panel

There were lots of other talks going on that evening but the above are the only ones I had time for, so my comments are restricted to the above.

I headed straight up to the "What makes a beauty product" exhibition as soon as I got in. Finally, I thought, a chance to talk to someone about the science behind beauty products or maybe learn something new and perhaps reassuring. But I was disappointed. The focal point of the exhibition was a computer-based exhibit that told people about their skin type, no doubt coupled with advice on what L'Oreal product would work best to complement it. It wasn't worth my time queueing for and I didn't care to find out more. The part that was actually about beauty R&D was... wait for it.... a pop up stand! Here's what it looked like:

There were two more stands showing the history of L'Oreal. Pretty pathetic eh? Struggling to prevent my face from scowling, I headed towards the table top experiments. Those at least had some element of science, but nothing particularly new to anyone who's done GCSE chemistry and I've got a bloody degree in it. Ooh dry ice. Ooh mixing acid and alkali to make something pop. No real relevance to the science of beauty, just an opportunity to make slightly tipsy people gasp.

With a sinking feeling that I was wasting my time I headed finally to the panel debate for "Why does beauty matter?" The panel members were Béatrice Dautresme, Executive Vice-President Corporate Communications and External Affairs for L’Oréal; psychotherapist Lucy Beresford; Carla Bevan, Editor of Marie Claire online; Sarahjane Robertson, Executive Director of the charity Look Good... Feel Better, UK; science broadcaster and author Vivienne Parry; and Professor David Perrett of the University of St Andrews. The panel members spoke in turns and then there was a Q&A. The whole thing was chaired by journalist Alice Hart-Davis.

Béatrice Dautresme from L'Oreal talked about a project they were doing cataloguing the history of beautification. We were treated to a promotional video. She pointed out that people have been doing this beauty thing forever, before companies came along. I got the feeling she was trying to subtly say "don't blame the beauty industry for making a big deal out of this, people have always wanted to look better". While it's true that people have always engaged in trying to make themselves look better, beauty companies have, I believe, changed it into more of an obsession than it should be. Lucy Beresford spoke about how beauty is tied up with self esteem. She quoted a survey that found 60% of women in London believed that wearing make-up gave them an edge at work. There was no discussion about why women believed this. I can't even remember what Carla Bevan from Marie Claire said. Sarahjane Robertson runs a charity called "Look Good... Feel Better" which gives support to women with breast cancer, namely with combating the visible effects of cancer treatment. A very worthy cause. Vivienne Parry basically took the opportunity to plug her new book on hormones and told us all about why we smell attractive to the opposite sex because of hormones. She's a pretty distinguished science communicator so I was surprised at how bubblegum her talk was. David Perrett showed some slides of faces and asked us to rate them on attractiveness. The point was that symmetrical faces are more appealing. Yawn.

Onto the Q&A. Someone asked the panel what they thought about the use of skin-lightening creams in India. Beatrice batted that one away telling us that light skin has always been seen as desirable because it meant you weren't working in the fields. I'm not kidding. No mention of L'Oreal's own racist policy of excluding non-white women from promoting its products. A man in the audience asked SarahJane Robertson if her charity provided services to men. It does. Other questions were not particularly memorable.

I left the debate feeling hugely disappointed and angry. Nobody talked about the science apart from giving the word itself a bit of lipservice. Nobody talked about whether our society is too obsessed with beauty or why beauty matters to much for women particularly.

In fact the whole evening was laughable. The most popular event of the evening seemed to be one where you could get a Cleopatra-style make-over. It all just felt like a promotional exercise for L'Oreal. Everywhere I went there were freebies. Being a cheapskate I took some. I now have samples of "UltraLift Pro-X re-plumping anti-wrinkle day cream", "Pureology" shampoos and conditioners and "Derma-Genesis Cellular Nurturing" day and night creams. I only took one sample of the anti-wrinkle cream (for research purposes!) and the woman doling them out told me to take as many as I wanted. When I said "it's OK, I'm only 27" she looked confused.

Sigh. I really did expect more from the Science Museum. I didn't expect PhD level science, but I hoped for something a bit more substantial. What I got wouldn't have intellectually stimulated a 5-year old. Even more disturbing was that the Science Museum completely sold out to L'Oreal, forsaking any exploration of the science (or lack of it) for a beautiful yet ultimately shallow promotional event. I know the Science Museum receives funding from companies but I don't expect it to compromise its integrity to do so.

Did I learn anything new? No. But I suppose I should stop thinking and just be grateful that I can re-plump my face with Pro-Xylane. Thanks Science Museum and L'Oreal.

A change of focus

Over the last few days I've been thinking about my blog, which I only started a few weeks ago. I originally intended to focus it on bad science in advertising. This naturally led me towards ripping into beauty product and yoghurt adverts. I have since realised that most of the bad science in adverts is in adverts aimed at women. I'm not sure why this is. It may be that there are simply more adverts selling products to women than there are men. It may be that the industries that fake-up science to support their products tend to be those selling to women. Those industries may need to fake-up science because the market is pretty saturated (how many anti-wrinkle creams are there now?) Perhaps advertisers think women are discerning and a bit of "evidence" is what they're looking for. Or perhaps more sinisterly, advertisers think women are easily bullshitted. I don't know.

Whatever it is, I'm already becoming a bit jaded. The more I notice adverts citing science/studies/research the more I realise that the majority are probably just bad science. I know there is no cream or potion in the world that will actually reduce wrinkles permanently therefore every single advert making claims for an anti-wrinkle cream must be non-evidence based. And that is depressing. It is also too easy to rip apart and while it's good therapy to rant, I question whether I'm actually adding anything useful to the debate or changing anybody's mind. Additionally, I'm increasingly feeling the urge to write about other topics, mainly around the intersections between science and feminism. Boobquake was just the start. (I guess it did have one positive effect then!) So I've decided to widen the boundaries of my blog to cast a skeptical eye at science, feminism and the areas where they intersect. I'll still be keeping an eye on bad science in advertising though, because after all, it is fun to shoot at such easy targets.

Boobquake: bad science and bad feminism

I'm straying away from my usual topic of bad science in advertising because I'm so intensely irritated by the event that is "Boobquake" taking place today.

Quick background. Boobquake is a reponse to comments made by an Iranian cleric (see here) who said:

"Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes"

This inspired student Jen McCreight to suggest an event similar to the excellent 10:23 homeopathy overdose, whereby getting a big enough group of women to dress immodestly and show boobs/cleavage at the same time could disprove this statement (because obviously it wouldn't cause earthquakes). She created a Facebook page and Twitter hashtag (#boobquake) and following an acceleration of the idea into a social media phenomenon now claims it was a silly joke.

For the record, I have some sympathy for her although I totally disagree that there is any science or feminism behind Boobquake. Both science and feminism are dear to my heart and that's why I'm a bit miffed.

The homeopathy overdose, in my view, was intended as a public message, demonstrating via a mass coordinated "overdose" that homeopathic pills contain no medicine and are just sugar pills. This is important because so many people DO believe that homeopathy is real medicine. It's available on the NHS and in pharmacies. Boobquake on the other hand is not about educating the public. Call me optimistic but I don't believe that many people in Western countries believe that women dressing immodestly causes earthquakes. It seems that people just want to prove this Iranian cleric wrong, but do they really believe someone like that will be convinced? Being a pedant, the original statement doesn't even claim immodest dressing causes earthquakes, but adultery, so the "experiment" isn't even testing the right variable. And if an earthquake does occur today it will be at best correlation not causation. So er, what are you trying to prove exactly?

I have problems with the feminism angle too. I personally don't believe that liberation is about getting your boobs out, apart from where it's making a point about the right to breast-feed in public. Is it better to objectify yourself than have someone else do it? (Further reading: Feminist Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy)  I know some feminists do not agree with me on this but vive la difference. Interestingly in this case, it is science, not liberation, is being used as the justification for getting women to show cleavage, these comments from Twitter demonstrate:

"Help fight supernatural thinking and the oppression of women just by showing your cleavage!"
"C'mon ladies, do your bit for science and reason!"
"Boobquake is a serious scientific experiment to prove that an Iranian cleric is NUTS. Boobs for SCIENCE!"

Utterly ridiculous.* Since when did objectification fight misogyny and bad science? What happened to good old fashioned scientific reasoning? Or should we girls leave the reasoning to the boys and just get topless?

There's also an interesting cultural dynamic to the whole thing, as illustrated by these comments for example:

"Boobquake won't cause an earthquake but it will reinforce the belief that Western Society is immodest and obsessed with sex"
"I'm not wearing a hat and my arms are out. I am positively pornographic by muslim standards"

The first comment I agree with, which is why Boobquake won't change the mind of anyone who actually blames women or adultery for natual disasters. It is pointless. The second comment is of course annoying because it lumps the extreme views of one man with all "muslim standards". FYI, there is not such thing as "muslim standards", muslim beliefs are very diverse, and many muslims do not believe that arms are pornographic.

To sum up, comparing Boobquake to the homeopathy overdose is insulting to proper skeptics and those who try to bust bad science myths. Boobquake is the most stupid intersection of bad science and bad feminism I've seen for a while, encouraging women to show some skin rather than actually engage with science in a meaningful way and provide wank fodder for people (men) who frankly don't give a s*** about science or the oppression of women.

*I know that some people are engaging with this in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way, but equally many are not.

Activia yoghurt: because women have dodgy guts

On Sunday my boyfriend asked me why yoghurt ads were always for women and whether women were "all constipated or something" (as so many adverts imply). He was slightly put out because he likes yoghurt a lot. More than I do in fact. I'd rather go full fat and eat ice cream.

I hadn't really noticed it much before but I think the boy's onto something. It was Activia yoghurt that inspired his comments. The TV advert, with the ever-chirpy Martine McCutcheon, was first shown in the post-Christmas overeating haze that befell Britain and told us that "we're done with those Christmas indulgences and "2010 is the year of Tummy Loving Care". It also contained the gem "when you feel happier on the inside, you're happier on the outside". A bit grating, but that's not too bad.

We get to the science bit about 17 seconds in:

Anatomically incorrect? Check. Inexplicable coloured blobs? Check. Words that sound suspiciously made-up? Check. Vague mention of "studies"? Check. It ticks all the boxes of bad science in adverts.

What is "bifidus actiregularis"? The bifidus part relates to the bifidus bacteria, technically known as bifidobacterium animalis. It's actually a bacteria already present in the human large intestine, which begs the question of whether anyone needs to eat it. "Actiregularis" is however, a completely made up word, probably to imply activity and regularity. There's an ongoing dispute over whether such probiotic yoghurts are any good, as discussed in this Guardian article for example.

The Activia website is supposed to shed some light on the science (kudos for showing a woman scientist at least). Activia says:

"Don't just take our word for it: 82% of women with digestive discomfort said they felt better after eating one or two pots of Activia® a day"

This is based on a study where 292 consumers ate one or two pots of Activia for 14 days. We have no idea why the women felt better and whether it was because of the Activia. Wouldn't they have begun feeling better anyway in a 14-day period? What does "feel better" mean in quantifiable terms anyway? How did the men in the group feel (if there were any)? Control groups?

Going back to the point of the article; why are these yoghurts adverts targetting only women? Don't men get digestive discomfort? To be honest I have no idea. But in my researching tonight I came across the wonderful Sarah Haskins, who regularly spoofs how the media targets women. I watched her hilarious video on yoghurts (US based but still relevent) and feel a bit better about unnecessarily gendered advertising. And I'm glad I don't eat much yoghurt because I don't want to become the poor Imodium woman who suffers from diarrhoea instead:

Women. You just can't trust your guts to behave.

Why does it matter?

Today, when I told somebody I had started this blog, I was asked "why does it matter?" Good question.

Adverts aren't hugely important in the grand scheme of things. Most people turn them off, tune them out or use the ad break to have a wee. We flick past adverts in newspapers and magazines and we barely even notice them on public transport. Nevertheless there is strong evidence that people are hugely influenced by advertising, even sub-conciously. Sometimes the advert itself can be awful yet you get the brand name in your head and that's the point, job done. Just seeing a brand advertised gives us faith that the company has some credibility - after all they must be doing well to be able to afford adverts. Popularity breeds popularity and you're more likely to then pick that brand in a shop. Aside from their pervasiveness and influence on our consumer behaviour, adverts also provide a reflection of our society and arguably influence it too. Adverts are everywhere and they matter.

The people that dream up adverts tap into various aspects of our psyches; fears and insecurities, aspirations, competitiveness, nosalgia and so on. In the case of beauty adverts, a specific group is predominantly being targetted: women. And the advertisers are usually tapping into our insecurities, aspirations and competitveness with other women. I wouldn't mind if beauty products were viewed as a bit of fun, but I do hate that women seem to NEED beauty products, having an underlying worry that without them they just aren't good enough. Adverts feed and encourage this view; it sells products after all.

By the way, if this strikes a chord with you, I strongly suggest you read The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf. It's basically aboout how the beauty industry feeds off womens' insecurities to make money and how womens' fixation with appearance holds them back.
I dare you to read it and not feel as if it's changed your life and outlook on beauty products.

Anyway, back to the science bit! We live in a society that's still quite scientifically illiterate. We have climate change deniers, people who believe in the idiocy that is Brain Gym, who fiercely oppose GM foods but are happy with medicines produced by GM organisms, who fear the MMR vaccine, who think creationism should be taught in classrooms and that "chemicals" are bad and "natural ingredients" are good (FYI all natural ingredients are chemicals!) And every time an advert justifies a product with a meaningless CGI sequence, uses made up words like "nutrileum" or "pro-V", cites consumer surveys where only 15 women were actually surveyed, bases claims on research that isn't publicly available or makes a great fuss over being "natural" and "chemical-free", it contributes to that scientific illiteracy just a little bit. It encourages people to trust in the science without actually using proper science. It's patronising to women, insults science and frankly it really fucks me off!

So I know it's not the worst thing ever. It doesn't kill people and I'm not saying anyone should stop buying products. In fact the mean side of me thinks it's just a stupid tax for people dumb enough to spend £50 on a pot of cream. But bad science in adverts is an abuse of power. It's asking you to spend your hard-earned money on a product in the faith that there is some evidence that it works better than an alternative, when maybe it doesn't. In short, it's a lie. And beauty products can't be avoided completely. Everyone needs shampoo.

And that is why bad science in adverts matters.

The wonder of the internet, and of blogging and social networking sites in paerticular, is that anyone can have a forum for expressing their views. This is where I express mine. But I'm really keen to get other peoples' views so please share comments, either below or via Twitter. Thanks!

Dove's new campaign focusing on science

Getting very excited, today I read that Dove is moving on from its "Campaign for Real Beauty" to a new campaign that will focus on the science used to create its products. The campaign will centre around Dove's new body lotion and hand cream, "Dove Visible Effects". Apparently the brand "will be promoted using the image of a flower and raindrops, intended to represent the product's three moisturising ingredients".

According to Unilever UK, the company that owns the Dove brand:

"Dove Visible Effects uses a unique patented formula with a Multi-layer Complex that combines three powerful moisturising ingredients to nourish all three layers of skin rather than just the surface layer.

This breakthrough technology means that Dove is able to provide essential care to the skin surface, the core and deep down, where beautiful skin begins" [source]

Well, my bullshit sensor is detecting something a bit whiffy already. But first a comment on Dove's real beauty campaign. Yes it seemed like a mini-revolution - getting curvy ladies to advertise beauty products, surely not! The feminist in me was mildly appeased. However it later emerged that the Dove ads were retouched, according to this interview with Pascal Dangin, professional retoucher of fashion photographs. So I guess real beauty was still too ugly for Dove.

Anyway, I was curious about the three layers of skin. I looked it up, as most people of my generation do, on Wikipedia. The three layers of skin are the epidermis (outermost), dermis and hypodermis. I'm sceptical over whether a body lotion could really nourish all these three layers, particulaly the hypodermis which is mainly a storage space for fat. If a cream could get that close to my bloodstream I'd be worried.

What are these three magic moisturising ingredients represented by a flower and raindrops? And what the heck is a multi-layer complex? Nowhere could I find an explanation, although I took a look at the ingredients. Obviously aqua is water and therefore probably what the raindrops represent (quick, gimme a science degree!). The product also contains glycerin and dihydroxypropyltrimonium chloride, which goes by the friendlier name of glycerol quat and is a moisturising agent last seen in Vaseline.

Perhaps they're saving the big news for their £2 million marketing campaign, which is due to start in May 2010. I'm looking forward to it. I'm all for cosmetic companies talking in plain language about the science behind their products without using made-up words and science diagrams for idiots. I remain optimistic for now despite reservations.

Garnier Nutritionist Caffeine Eye Roll-on

It's fitting to begin with the advert that eventually tipped me over the edge, forcing me to confront my mild technophobia. It's the latest from Garnier, a roll-on product for eyes containing caffeine to reduce dark circles.

There are many versions of the advert but here's the one from the Garnier website:




And here's a close-up of the product packaging explaining how the product works:





The premise is that caffeine combined with a "massaging action" will "encourage drainage around the eye contour area" and "smooth the skin and reduce the appearance of bags and dark circles". This is backed up by a sciencey-looking diagram that includes a coffee bean (source of caffeine no doubt), a stylised representation of Pro-vitamin B5 and a leaf (to make that all-important link to nature?). The packaging also hints at results from "tests conducted under dermatological control".


Here comes the science bit...


First, I have to point out that although Pro-vitamin B5 is routinely used in hair and skin products as a moisturiser, it is not a pretty-looking honeycomb structure. It's chemical name is panthenol and it looks a little something like this.


A good way, possibly the best way, to figure out if a product will solve a problem is to look at what causes the problem in the first place. In the case of dark circles under eyes, possible causes include eye rubbing, allergies, lack of sleep, dehydration and eczema. Because there are so many possible causes it would be surprising if caffeine could always reduce dark circles. At most, we could say that caffeine could help some people in some cases.


What about the tests carried out under dermatological control? Back to the Garnier website, which states that "4/5 of Boots customers say 'It's THE anti-dark circles MUST HAVE' (108 women tested)". I assume this isn't the result of the tests because that ain't a scientific conclusion from a proper scientific test, it's the result of a consumer survey. I have searched in vain for the original study on the internet and may request it from Garnier if the adverts on the tube continue to irk me.


In the meantime I think it's safe to say, using a bit of common sense and internet browsing, that if this product works for you, you would probably benefit equally from a bit of eye cream, a gentle massage (use your fingers, they're free) and maybe the old trick of teabags on the eyes. It would cost a heck of a lot less than £10 for a 15ml roll-on.


I'm a beginner at this so let me know your thoughts!

The first post

The protocol for introducing a new blog is a bit unclear (hello world, here I am?) particularly when there are about two people reading; me and my mum.

This blog is the result of my ongoing frustration at the spurious use of science in adverts, particularly those for cosmetic and beauty products. Inspired by the many greats in science blogging out there, I am venturing into the blogosphere to vent my frustrations and perhaps start discussions. Frankly my boyfriend has had enough of my rants. I have modest expectations, I would like to find like-minded frustrated individuals and perhaps even inspire everyday folks to think a bit more about the bad science in advertising we see on TV, in newspapers and in magazines daily.

I'm no expert in the science of beauty products, but isn't that the point? You don't have to be an expert to cut through the crap.