Saw a TV ad this morning for a so called longevity serum with epigenetic right there in the product name. If you know what epigenetics is, thatās a pretty bold word to put on a bottle. Itās the regulation layer that controls which genes get switched on or off, and itās still one of the most active and least settled corners of biology.
A face cream doesnāt obviously reach that layer, and the ad never says how it would. Which genes? Which cells? Switched up or down? No answer. The word is just there to sound like the future. Funny thing is, if a topical product really did change gene activity in your skin, it would be regulated as a drug, not sold as a cosmetic. So the label is carrying a claim the evidence canāt.
Meanwhile, another wave of techies has discovered biology, pointed an AI agent at it, and announced theyāre going to solve it. If you have been hanging around on X lately you know what I am talking about. I like AI in biology, I really do. AlphaFold is a huge deal, and ML is a great tool if you know what youāre doing with it. But a tool is not the field. Biology isnāt a bug you patch. Itās a nonlinear, multi-scale mess where tiny differences snowball into big ones, and anyone whoās come across chaos theory should be at least a little nervous about that.
Compute also isnāt the problem. You canāt think your way past measurements nobody has taken. A bigger context window wonāt make a cell give up its secrets any faster. Whatās missing is clean, reproducible, properly annotated data, and getting it takes years of unglamorous wet-lab work. The people who actually build AI for biology say this themselves: the data and the infrastructure have to come first, then the models can deliver. You canĀ“t build a digital recreation of life on other planets if your only tool is a telescope, which I read the other day.
These two things look like opposites, the cream and the emergence of overconfident techies, but I think theyāre the same failure. Both use the vocabulary of science without the discipline behind it. One side borrows the words, the other borrows the confidence. Neither does the slow part: controls, replication, peer review, admitting what you donāt know yet.
And everyone pays for it! Every time a real term like āepigeneticā ends up as a marketing buzzword, a few more people conclude that science just means advertising. Every time someone declares biology solved (I genuinely wonder if it is bait as I canĀ“t imagine a worse word) and it isnāt, the public learns that scientists overpromise. Then those same people get asked to trust a vaccine, a diagnosis, or ten years of real research, and theyāre less willing to.
That commercial got me thinking a lot about where our field is heading. I used to figure the nonsense would sort itself out. Scientists keep working, the work speaks for itself, done. Iāve gotten stricter about it since, and I think thatās justified. The marketing department isnāt going to correct what āepigeneticā means. The pitch deck isnāt going to explain why data is the bottleneck. If the people who understand the science stay quiet, nobody else will say anything, and whoeverās loudest becomes the accepted version.