It has been nearly 100 years since the creation of UVB filters. Their invention is, perhaps, the most far-reaching innovation in the history of the skincare industry. Other innovations followed, but not very quickly. 

After the second World War, a revolution was achieved in the way to conceive the activity of skincare products. In the late 1960s, products were made that were able to exfoliate, using salicylic acid in water/ethanol lotions at first, and then with salicylic acid encapsulated in liposomes embodied in topical creams. This gave birth to the field of “active cosmetics” and opened an avenue to search for real, visible, measurable cosmetic effects. 

In the 1980s nonionic liposomes (Niosomes) were generated. They provided light textures to emulsions and remarkably improved the aesthetics of creams. Another major innovation, in the 1990s, was the introduction of broad spectrum UVB-UVA filters in day creams. Together with these groundbreaking innovations, skincare products improved because of the production of better surfactants such as silicones, better biopolymers such as polyfucose, better emulsifiers such as sophorolipids and better excipients, that were brought to the market over time.

Innovation’s Impetus

Innovation in cosmetics results from two main research avenues aimed at two major goals: remove toxic ingredients and identify favorable ones. Historically, the best results have been obtained when cosmetic companies collaborated with academia. For product safety, working with molecular geneticists promoted the introduction of Ames test and allowed the industry to eliminate all the mutagenic hair dyes. Work with university biotechnology departments helped replace irritating surfactants such as dodecyl sulfates with natural ones such as the sophorolipids. 

For product efficacy, the work with university photobiologists fostered the understanding of UVA-induced photoaging. Collaborations with photochemists helped synthesize stable, broad-spectrum UV filters. Interaction with physical chemists from academia made it possible to prepare nonionic liposomes and other nano-capsules for better delivery of water, antioxidants and other active ingredients across the stratum corneum. Last but not least, the work with university dermatologist helped cosmetic chemists understand the process of inflammation, as well as the mechanisms of action of skin-friendly vitamins such as vitamin A, vitamin B3, vitamin C, vitamin D and vitamin E.

The Academic Angle

The belief that collaboration with academia was fruitful was shared by the major cosmetic companies and lasted until about 1990. That’s when the CEO of a large French company manifested his unhappiness with the R&D division, whose huge budget added up to about 5% of the company’s turnover. He felt that there was too much “academic” work in the R&D division. His opinions was shared by the decision-makers in other cosmetic giants, who also felt it necessary to stop “useless” basic research.

The CEO in question decided what the company really needed were business-minded scientists. Two scientists that had created two biotech startups were hired, one to lead the biology department, and the other to lead the global formulation laboratories. The move was a total flop: the first one failed in discovery of the alopecia gene—despite having an R&D budget of pharma size (15% of the global turnover). The second scientist, hired because he had a previous experience with a yogurt company, did not succeed in formulating skincare creams with yogurt’s velvety esthetics.

Giants Collaborate

Some of the cosmetic giants turned themselves pharmacology as a possible source of inspiration and innovation, particularly in the anti-acne arena. In the 1970s L’Oréal bought a small pharmaceutical company, Synthélabo. It merged with Sanofi in 1999 and then Sanofi merged with Aventis in 2004. 

I am not sure what kind of innovation in the skincare arena was generated by this concubinage, but I know that Sanofi is presently buying back its shares from L’Oréal. A more successful adventure started in the 1980s, when L’Oréal undertook a collaboration with another giant, Nestlé, and created a pharmacology company, Galderma, to develop a molecule synthesized by a scientist of L’Oréal. That molecule was later called Adapalene and shown to be reasonably active against acne. 

Unfortunately, Galderma had a bumpy ride. The joint venture between the two giants came to an end and Galderma went on living its own bumpy yet reasonably successful life. Years later, in 2003, another cosmetic giant entered the field of pharma: Estée Lauder acquired the anti-acne specialist Rodan and Fields. But the joint venture did not last and was interrupted in 2007. Presently, Estée Lauder is partnering with Serpin Pharma, a very small pharmacology startup specialized in anti-inflammatory molecules and in protease inhibitors, that could be of interest to alleviate some unwanted conditions in aged skin. This endeavour with Serpin Pharma is reminiscent of the model of collaborations of cosmetic companies with academia scientists. Estée Lauder’s approach seems to be very wise, indeed. 

Some professionals in the skincare industry seem to believe that innovation will follow the joining of efforts of Big Cosmo with Big Pharma. It might not be so straightforward. As a matter of fact two main hurdles hinder the achievement of innovation as a result of these collaborations: the guidelines of the FDA on the one hand, and the different corporate philosophies on the other. Indeed, whenever a molecule is claimed to have a physiological activity whatsoever, the FDA stipulates that it is a drug and must follow the guidelines established for drug, and that is very expensive. 

And the rigidly organized structures of Big Pharma have corporate philosophies that differs quite a bit from the ones of Big Cosmo companies, some of which, for instance, want to go extremely quickly to market and others, in spite of their size, do not even have an organigram. It is not dificult to predict that these differences will make make a collaboration between giants a quite uneasy task.

Perilous Publishing

In my opinion, innovation is in the hand of the decision makers and of the scientists. Scientists should stop publishing results that are statistically significant but are not relevant. Decision makers should make claims after having obtained results instead of demanding results that agree with their claims. And in a company committed to innovation, no senior executive should ever tell a scientist in R&D, as I was told once, when I pointed out that a claim was not substantiated, “We are in the science of business, not in the business of science!”

Paolo Giacomoni, PhD

Insight Analysis Consulting
paologiac@gmail.com
516-769-6904

Paolo Giacomoni acts as an independent consultant to the skin care industry. He served as Executive Director of Research at Estée Lauder and was Head of the Department of Biology with L’Oréal. He has built a record of achievements through research on DNA damage and metabolic impairment induced by UV radiation as well as on the positive effects of vitamins and antioxidants. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed publications and has more than 20 patents. He is presently Head of R&D with L.RAPHAEL—The science of beauty—Geneva, Switzerland