A report on recent pilot studies describes the
development of a “second skin” composed of commonly used chemicals that can be
“worn” over a person’s existing skin. While this innovative product has the
potential to treat (but not cure) a variety of problematic skin conditions, the
headline on the New York Times article on the subject reveals the hopes of the
manufacturers: “‘Second Skin’ May Reduce
Wrinkles, Eyebags, Scientists Say.” In the first paragraph the Times piece
describes “an invisible film that can be painted on your skin and give it the
elasticity of youth. Bags under the eyes vanish in seconds. Wrinkles
disappear.”
Far from being a product whose application is geared
primarily to treat pathological skin conditions, the “second skin” promises new
cosmetic uses that enhance the appearance of aging skin.
Cosmetics
Use Controversy
An ongoing controversy in bioethics addresses the
difference between medical interventions designed to cure or ameliorate
diseases or conditions resulting from injuries or accidents, on the one hand,
and interventions intended to “enhance” physical or mental functions and
personal appearance on the other.
Perhaps the best-known example of this is the
distinction between reconstructive facial surgery to restore a “normal” facial
appearance following a disfiguring accident and cosmetic surgery such as a nose
job or a face lift. However, the debate in the bioethics literature focuses on
efforts to develop genetic enhancements that can make people smarter or give
them superior physical abilities.
The widespread use (or abuse) of “performance
enhancers” in competitive sports is a well-known example of a practice banned
because of the unfair advantage it offers users. It is argued that cognitive
enhancements are similarly unfair because they give students who would use them
an advantage over their academic competitors.
But what about cosmetic enhancements for individuals
in a noncompetitive setting: those of us with wrinkled skin due to aging? Is
there anything ethically wrong with scientists and industry developing physical
enhancements that disguise some of the inevitable signs of aging?
Important
Cover-Ups
To be fair, the “second skin” does have important
medical applications. As the article notes, it can be used “to treat eczema,
psoriasis and other skin conditions by covering dry itchy patches with a film
that moistens and soothes.” The abstract of an article published in Nature
Materials by the scientists who conducted the pilot studies mentions that the
product “may offer advanced solutions to compromised skin barrier function,
pharmaceutical delivery and wound dressings.” These uses certainly provide
medical benefits to patients. However, the abstract actually begins with a
sentence that describes this polymer layer as something “that mimics the
properties of normal, youthful skin.” Clearly, the authors had in mind cosmetic
as well as therapeutic uses. A Harvard dermatology professor and member of the
research team said that one of the first applications was on undereye bags. The
Times article describes this affliction as “a condition that plagues so many
middle-aged and older people.” Few things better illustrate the obsession with
youth in our culture. “Plagues,” indeed.
The
Priorities Question
Let me hasten to say that I see nothing ethically
problematic with people choosing to use cosmetic enhancements, be they surgical
or chemical. Furthermore, a product such as the “second skin” does have medical
applications that can provide relief for people who suffer from painful,
disfiguring or uncomfortable skin conditions. However, it is the cosmetic
applications that are most likely to make money for the privately owned
biotechnology company that funded the research and the privately owned company
that holds the patents. The Times article notes that all of the authors of the
paper published in Nature Materials have equity interests in both of these
commercial companies.
If there is an ethical problem with developments such
as this and other enhancements, it lies primarily with setting priorities in
biomedical research. It is true that private companies can conduct research on
whatever they wish as long as they do not violate laws or regulations. And, as
long as taxpayers’ money is not used, say, for National Institutes of Health
research on such pursuits, private money devoted to reducing wrinkles is simply
business as usual.
But, in a world where emerging infectious diseases are
causing global concerns and where chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer
are increasingly prevalent in resource-poor countries, devoting resources to
eliminate bags under the eyes of middle-aged and elderly residents of
resource-rich countries raises profound questions of justice.
The newspaper article quoted a Harvard faculty member
who tried the product under his eyes: “It does work... But it was a little
depressing... I didn’t realize I had those bags.” After reading the article I
looked in the mirror. What I discovered was age-appropriate bags under my eyes.
Since I’m not planning to enter a geriatric beauty contest, I’ll save my own
limited resources for other pursuits.
Ruth Macklin
This
post was originally featured on The Doctor’s Tablet, the blog of Albert Einstein College
of Medicine.
No comments:
Post a Comment