Joined
·
670 Posts
This part of it is ridiculously mental: "Efficient and safe, definitely. But is it ethical? And right?"
I read about this stuff a while back and I have yet to notice it go mainstream. I wonder if I can find them and get me a supply!
![]()
Gloriel and the issue of skin lightening
Gloriel and the issue of skin lightening
- Saturday 3 November 2007.
By Daniel Tseghay.
What should we make of skin whitening: the deliberate attempt to make oneâ€2122s skin fairer? How much of this practice is fueled by racism, and problems of self-image? How much of it is completely innocent - an innocuous preference for lighter skin? For many, these questions have not crossed their minds enough to bring an answer. Same goes for me, to tell the truth. However, new award-winning technology may startle us into considered thought of this problem.
Pratik Lodha and Eman Ahmed-Muhsin, two graduate students at Carleton University,Canada, developed a skin-lightening cream called Gloriel. The product was a finalist in the 2007 Student Technology Venture Challenge, and won a $5,000 prize. Previous lightening products essentially wiped away pigment using harmful chemicals that often had very nasty side-effects. Not Gloriel. As written in the CBC, “Gloriel uses a reversible gene-silencing method called RNA interference to reduce the production of skin pigments called melanin.†This is a much safer way. Itâ€2122s a bit like keeping a persistent house painter a few meters from your home - rather than scraping the paint off afterwards, damaging your walls.
Efficient and safe, definitely. But is it ethical? And right? The creators of Gloriel have insisted it is. They point out that Gloriel is not only capable of lightening skin, but of also darkening it. They also avoid responsibility, in the event that Gloriel is objectionable, by saying that “The market exists and weâ€2122re not going to increase or decrease that market. Weâ€2122re just offering a safer and more effective method.â€
These points are interesting and good. Thereâ€2122s no way to know which option a creator prefers when the product has multiple, and sometimes opposite, purposes. And because thereâ€2122s no way to know this, we should usually be rest assured neither option is being forced on its customers. So, I guess, Gloriel doesnâ€2122t make itâ€2122s buyers lighten their skin. And even if the creators preferred their products to be used a skin-lightener, we may have to take the responsibility and blame off their shoulders. They are merely providing a product people seem to want. Nothing more and nothing less.
But sadly itâ€2122s not that simple. The reasons behind darkening oneâ€2122s skin and lightening it are very different. People darken themselves because tanned skin, if even just a little, represents health and vitality. But lightened skin represents something else. The belief that light-skinned people are in many ways superior to their darker counterparts still fills many of us.
It may be a remnant of the imperial age, when Europeans colonized Africans, South Americans, and Asians, convincing them of the idea that colonialism was good because only whites can effectively govern darker people. Even with post-colonialism, the belief that the most obvious characteristic of our previous governors, light skin, is preferable, still lingers like a bad smell. So even though Gloriel can be used to both lighten and darken skin, human history suggests one will be preferred. Wrongly, in my opinion.
Of course, I donâ€2122t mean to suggest Gloriel and other similar products should be banned. We should rather take it as a source of discussion. Perhaps with enough debate we can acknowledge the subtle prejudice that remains, and purge ourselves of it.
I read about this stuff a while back and I have yet to notice it go mainstream. I wonder if I can find them and get me a supply!
Gloriel and the issue of skin lightening
Gloriel and the issue of skin lightening
- Saturday 3 November 2007.
By Daniel Tseghay.
What should we make of skin whitening: the deliberate attempt to make oneâ€2122s skin fairer? How much of this practice is fueled by racism, and problems of self-image? How much of it is completely innocent - an innocuous preference for lighter skin? For many, these questions have not crossed their minds enough to bring an answer. Same goes for me, to tell the truth. However, new award-winning technology may startle us into considered thought of this problem.
Pratik Lodha and Eman Ahmed-Muhsin, two graduate students at Carleton University,Canada, developed a skin-lightening cream called Gloriel. The product was a finalist in the 2007 Student Technology Venture Challenge, and won a $5,000 prize. Previous lightening products essentially wiped away pigment using harmful chemicals that often had very nasty side-effects. Not Gloriel. As written in the CBC, “Gloriel uses a reversible gene-silencing method called RNA interference to reduce the production of skin pigments called melanin.†This is a much safer way. Itâ€2122s a bit like keeping a persistent house painter a few meters from your home - rather than scraping the paint off afterwards, damaging your walls.
Efficient and safe, definitely. But is it ethical? And right? The creators of Gloriel have insisted it is. They point out that Gloriel is not only capable of lightening skin, but of also darkening it. They also avoid responsibility, in the event that Gloriel is objectionable, by saying that “The market exists and weâ€2122re not going to increase or decrease that market. Weâ€2122re just offering a safer and more effective method.â€
These points are interesting and good. Thereâ€2122s no way to know which option a creator prefers when the product has multiple, and sometimes opposite, purposes. And because thereâ€2122s no way to know this, we should usually be rest assured neither option is being forced on its customers. So, I guess, Gloriel doesnâ€2122t make itâ€2122s buyers lighten their skin. And even if the creators preferred their products to be used a skin-lightener, we may have to take the responsibility and blame off their shoulders. They are merely providing a product people seem to want. Nothing more and nothing less.
But sadly itâ€2122s not that simple. The reasons behind darkening oneâ€2122s skin and lightening it are very different. People darken themselves because tanned skin, if even just a little, represents health and vitality. But lightened skin represents something else. The belief that light-skinned people are in many ways superior to their darker counterparts still fills many of us.
It may be a remnant of the imperial age, when Europeans colonized Africans, South Americans, and Asians, convincing them of the idea that colonialism was good because only whites can effectively govern darker people. Even with post-colonialism, the belief that the most obvious characteristic of our previous governors, light skin, is preferable, still lingers like a bad smell. So even though Gloriel can be used to both lighten and darken skin, human history suggests one will be preferred. Wrongly, in my opinion.
Of course, I donâ€2122t mean to suggest Gloriel and other similar products should be banned. We should rather take it as a source of discussion. Perhaps with enough debate we can acknowledge the subtle prejudice that remains, and purge ourselves of it.
