[btilly]

I vote for recognizing clear risks, and taking appropriate steps to mitigate them up front. If you're deliberately trying to put biologically active stuff into millions of people, it is just a question of time before the law of unintended consequences hits you. Your desire to sell more effective skin whitening creams does not, in my books, mean that you should ignore the possibility that your beautifier can make people sick. And if you're in doubt, I want you to err on the side of safety.

Of course if you're selling something that we have good evidence is both acceptably safe and makes people look better, then the more power to you. But that's not, by her admission, the position that she is probably in.

[guard-of-terra]

What makes you think she doesn't have good evidence that her product is both acceptably safe and makes people look better? I re-read that portion of TFA and nothing rang my bell.

[btilly]

Based on the article, she's a pioneer in using new biological pathways for a cosmetic effect. You don't get to be first if you're trying to study safety, and that industry as a whole does not pay much attention to safety.

Therefore I find it extremely likely that she has evidence of biological effect in your body's cells, and has not done research on unexpected possible side effects in the same cells that she's impacting.

[guard-of-terra]

Oh that's brilliant. If she is a pioneer then she is automatically pronounced guilty, and the people who come and share her work with much less risk are to get the benefits.

I see so much enterpreneur spirit in your comments on HN that I am speechless.

Is this your life choice as well? Looking for people who innovate, bash them over their mistakes and then steal their good results?