Introduction

The human skin is the largest organ of the human body. It not only has quite a complex structure, but also performs several life sustaining functions.

We can live without a Spleen, Gall Bladder, or an Appendix, and we can survive with only one Kidney or one Lung, but we cannot survive without our skin. As a result it is of the utmost importance that we take care of our skin.

Using natural skin care products is a good first step in providing the skin with the right nutrients and building materials to retain its health and functionality.

What Does Our Skin Actually Do for Us?

Our skin has many functions, most of which we are unaware of until something goes wrong. They include:

 

If you want to read about these functions in more detail you can have a look at this article: “Anatomy & Physiology of the Skin”.

In summary, these functions provide us with awareness of our surrounding climatic environment, protect us against some of the bacteria and other potentially harmful bugs in our surroundings, allow us to experience touch and feel, eliminate toxins from our body, store blood, and provide the means for our body to obtain vitamin D while protecting our body from the sun’s UV-rays.

Considering these vital functions our skin has to perform, it is no surprise that we need to look after our skin and make sure it is given every opportunity to function properly and remain healthy.

Why You Should Choose Natural Skin Care Products?

With all the media and news reports warning consumers of the potentially toxic ingredients in many of the commercially available skin care products sold in supermarkets and department stores, this is an easy question to answer.

Firstly, many of the commonly used skin care products contain artificial and/or synthetic ingredients that the body has difficulties in eliminating, and as a result it tends to store these chemicals in its tissues. Research has shown that the accumulation of many of these substances can have serious health effects.

If you are interested in learning more about some of the toxic chemicals used in skin care products, please read the article “Potentially Toxic Ingredients In Skin Care Products”. It will provide you with much information and research references for you to be able to identify what is in your skin care products and what should not be there.

Holistically natural skin care products do not contain artificial or synthetic ingredients. They should also not contain isolated, concentrated, natural substances, such as parabens (pseudo-natural preservative) and the like, that have been shown to be potentially hazardous.

How To Choose Natural Skin Care Products That are Safe and Effective?

This is where it starts to get really difficult. You see, many so called natural or organic skin care products are in reality nothing of the kind. Adding a miniscule amount of aloe vera to water does not constitute a holistically natural skin care product. It may be ‘natural’ or even ‘organic’, but it will not be effective and therefore is a waste of your money.

To have an effective aloe vera product for example, it requires at least 10% of the overall content to be aloe vera. Or, the aloe vera needs to be combined with several other active, natural ingredients that are combined to achieve a specific result.

The term ‘Organic’ is another area where consumers are being misled. Adding a single ‘organic’ ingredient and then calling the products ‘organic’, is quite simply wrong. You see the commercials on television and magazines every day… “xyz product contains organic this and organic that”… but no mention is made of the other ingredients that are contained in these products, many of which have been shown to be hazardous to our health.

There is yet another problem with natural skin care products, that is an area of confusion and potentially misleading. Just ask yourself what exactly is “natural”? What is actually meant by the term “natural”?

The word ‘natural’ congers up images of nature – pristine environments that make us feel good. A safe, natural environment that is conducive to health and a sense of wellbeing. Spring water, waterfalls, pristine lakes, a healthy salads, Rainforests, etc., are all images that we perceive as ‘natural’, or in other words ‘good for us’.

The cosmetic industry has ceased on this and is using the word natural to instil in their advertisements a sense of wellbeing and the idea that this product is good for us. Unfortunately, one or two natural ingredients does not a natural skin care product make… Far from it, natural skin care products should not contain any ingredients that are not naturally sourced. This brings us to another problem with natural skin care products.

A naturally sourced ingredient, such as the various forms of paraben, may still be potentially hazardous. Just think about it – would you put arsenic or lead on your skin? No of course you wouldn’t. But, they are natural, so what’s the problem? Natural substances too can also be deadly poisons.

Applying this to skin care products, you might be looking for a product that is natural and contains AHAs (alpha hydroxy acids), which we know help to remove dead skin cell layers which in turn helps to remove fine lines and wrinkles, revealing new vibrant skin.

Now, you could buy a product that lists as one of its ingredients AHAs, it might even contain AHA in its name, or you could buy a product that contains a concentrate called papain, which is a natural substance from the Papaya fruit. So, yes papain is natural and yes this product could, depending on other ingredients, be called a natural skin care product. However, papain is a concentrate and as such many people have experienced side effects because the papain is present in too high a concentration for some people.

A truly, holistically natural skin care product would not contain papain as an extract. Rather it would contain Papaya fruit itself. You see, the whole fruit still contains papain, however, it also contains other ingredients in the papaya that modify the excessively strong effect of the papain. Choosing such a product will, at least to a large extent, reduce any potential side effects from the papain, because the product is naturally balanced and contains naturally balanced ingredients that will benefit your skin rather than burn it.

The results of removing fine lines and wrinkles may take a little longer, but are overall better and you reduce the chance of ‘burning’ your skin with a concentrated AHA. Remember AHA stands for alpha hydroxy acid and we all know acids burn our skin.

How To Use Natural Skin Care Products?

Following directions

This is actually a lot more important than most people think. Directions for use are a communication by the manufacturer of a product to their consumers about how to use and get the best results from a particular product.

It has been our experience, that most people who purchase our natural skin care products do not read the directions and use our products the same way that they have been using their previous brand. This however, may or may not be the correct way to use our products.

Properly formulated products contain ingredients in sufficiently high quantities to achieve a desired effect if used in accordance with the product’s directions. Using more does not mean better or quicker results, rather using too much can have adverse effects or no more effect than the lesser quantity.

Conversely, if for example, the product’s directions suggest that it be used 2 or 3 times a day using it merely once is not likely to produce the desired effect in most cases.

This is obvious when we think about taking medicine. We read the directions and take the drugs, herbs, or what ever, as prescribed and hopefully we get the desired result.

So why is it that we do this when it comes to taking medicine, but ignore it (for the most part) when it comes to using skin care products or other personal care products?

Reading the instructions carefully and following them ensures that a) you are not wasting your money, and b) you should get the desired results.

 

Good and Bad Reactions from Using Skin or Personal Care Products

There are several possible reactions you may experience. There are good reactions and negative reactions.

Let’s look at good reactions to begin with.

Good Skin Reactions to New Products

Herbs, essential oils and most of the other ingredients that you’ll find in our range of products have a medicinal actions and are included for a specific purpose, that is, the formulations that make up our various products were originally designed to treat particular skin health issues. This intent, though we do not actively promote this, continues to this day.

As you probably know, there are three basic skin types; Normal, Oily and Dry. In addition, your skin may also be sensitive, prone to allergic reactions or under the influence of hormonal changes that are taking place in your body. The herbs and essential oils in our products are specifically chosen to normalise the skin given one of the skin types. The herbs and essential oils will have a therapeutic effect on the skin’s structure and function in order to provide an environment under which your skin will start to function normally again.

Similarly this is relevant for sensitive skin that tends to react inappropriately to different stimuli. It is possible, for example, that an individual with sensitive skin who is using our products for the first time, will experience a reaction which they may see as being a negative reaction.

This however, may well be totally the opposite to what is actually taking place. You see, in order for your skin’s health to improve, it has to change. This change may appear at first as a worsening of a particular skin issue and this will understandably be interpreted as a negative.

Under normal circumstances however, this type of reaction, if the products are continued with, will only last for a few days and following this time the skin will improve and end up much healthier. This process is sometimes referred to as ‘A healing crisis’, and is actually a good thing to happen.

It signifies that the ingredients are doing what they are supposed to, that is they are repairing and normalising the skin’s functions.

This is a normal and in fact good reaction.

Bad Skin Reactions to New Products

Obviousely there are times when a new product may actually cause a bad skin reaction. Unfortunately a bad reaction often appears very similarly to a good reaction. So how can you tell the difference and what should you do?

The first thing to do when ever you purchase a new skin or personal care product is to test it to see if you have any adverse reactions to this product. Below is a detailed outline and links that will provide you with all the information you need to test a new product in order to determine whether or not your skin is going to react adversely to it or not.

Test the Products to Avoid Allergic Reactions

Another important aspect to using any skin care, personal care or cosmetic products, whether they are natural or otherwise, is to test the products first in order to see if you are allergic to any of the ingredients.

To do this, follow the steps described in our article “The Skin Patch Test”, which will provide you with a simple, yet effective step-by-step test that you can easily do at home over a 24 hour period, to reasonably ensure that you will not experience major adverse reactions to the ingredients in products you want to use on your face, or anywhere else on your body. This test is simple and very effective.

Finally, before you purchase a product, look at the ingredients list and see if the ingredients are easily recognisable. As a rule of Thumb, if the ingredients are easily recognisable it is more likely that the ingredients are of a natural source and have not been excessively modified. If on the other hand you need a chemistry degree to understand what the ingredient is, it is likely not to be a holistically-natural ingredient. It may still be a natural ingredient, but it is likely that it has been isolated and is used in a concentrated, possibly even synthetic form.

For the most part, most ‘natural skin care products’ widely available in the market place are far from natural or that matter organic. Most have minimal quantities of some natural ingredient in an otherwise non-natural product and are referring to the one natural ingredient in the product, rather than the nature of the product itself.

Hopefully this article will clarify some of the confusion that exists about what is a natural skin care product and what is not, help you to choose natural skin care products that will actually live up to your expectations, and clarify why using natural skin care products is a healthier choice.

What is Organizational Culture?

The culture of the organization could probably be described as the environment that surrounds the people at work all of the time. Not only that, but it is also considered to be a powerful element that paves way to shape the work environment, the work relationships and the work processes. In other words, it could also be described as the personality of the organization, meaning to say that the culture of an organization basically highlights what kind of organization it is in the first place.

The organizational culture is basically made up of assumptions, values, beliefs, attitudes and the artefacts of the people in the entire organization. In other words, it is made up of all the real life experiences brought in by the employees in addition to the influence of the organization’s founder, executives and the other managerial staff who are involved in the decision making process of the organization. Having said that, in order to understand the culture of an organization more clearly let us look at some of the characteristics of the organizational culture.

Some characteristics of Organizational culture

However, the organizational culture may differ from one organization to another. For example, the culture of a hospital or university is quite different to the culture of a bank. This is because the culture of an organization is quite visible to some extent through their arrangement of furniture, how things are organized, what the people wear and what they talk about etc. Having said that, some organizations have weak cultures while some have strong cultures.  Let us  go look at each of the two types of culture in a bit more detail.

What is a Weak Organizational Culture?

A weak organizational culture is when the people in the organization do not agree on the same basic beliefs and values as applies to the organization, and in stead they tend to have their very own ideas, beliefs and behaviours etc. As a result, the people are controlled by way of using restricted rules, procedures, supervision and bureaucracy within the organization. On one hand, a weak culture may be the result of many subcultures. In other means, a weak culture would rather encourage individual thought and contributions.

To say, this type of culture would be better for an organization that tends to grow throw innovative ideas, and only if the people in the organization could at least have a common goal and help the management to come up with plans for the future,  even their ideas may be different. For example, different departments may have different sub cultures with different believes and ideas but still they should all work for a goal such as helping the organization to grow. But at the same time, if the people  in the group think individually having different goals in mind, then this will no doubt lead to conflicts or cause problems between the people and the management. If this happens, then of course the organization falls into a situation of failure because of the different sub groups trying to fulfil separate goals rather than a common goal. It should be said that weak cultures are easily changeable as they are not stable and the organizations with weak cultures are usually considered to be in efficient and less effective at most times. This is mainly due to the restricted rules, supervision and bureaucracy carried out within the organization.

What is a Strong Organizational Culture?

The  culture of an organization is considered to be strong when the majority of people in the organization tends to hold the same basic beliefs and values as applies to the organization. In other words, it could also be said that an organization has a deep rooted strong culture when the employees respond strongly to the values and thus passes it on successfully to the rest of people. Having said that, a strong culture in particular has many advantages. To say,

However, in spite of all the advantages, there are times when a strong culture may not exactly be the culture that is needed when it comes to facing the competitive environment. This is because the organization may have to come up with many innovative ideas in order to face the competition rather than sticking on to the old ways of doing things. To say, if the people in the organization are completely following the values and beliefs of the existing culture when it comes to achieving the goals, then they obviously lack the opportunities to think in a much creative or innovative way in order to come up with unique solutions or ideas to face the ever changing turbulent environment.  This is because they all think no beyond than their existing culture. This is basically a draw back in the strong culture. Too, a strong culture is indeed difficult to change at times of need, and needs a lot of effort to do so because people once adapted to the old way of doing things it is unlikely that they are willing to change their behaviour unlike in a weak culture.

Conclusion

It should be said that organization culture may be different from one organization to another. Meaning to say that, some organizations will have strong cultures while the other may have weak cultures. A strong culture is when the majority of people tends to agree on the existing beliefs and values and beliefs in the organization, meaning to so that there is one dominant culture in spite the other sub cultures that exists.  On the other hand a weak culture is when the majority of people disagree on the existing culture but instead forms their own sub cultures.

Having said that, it is also important to keep in mind that no culture can be the right culture. Even though many tend to believe that an organization should have a strong culture in order to survive, it is true to a greater extent but not always. This is because it is indeed vital to always keep of watch of the competitive environment thus because the existing culture may not be suitable for the competitive environment at times. For example, when it comes to facing the competition it more or less needs an organization culture that is open for more innovative ideas. In other words, the organizational culture must fit with the competitive environment and the organization in order to meet the goals. As a result, there is no right or wrong  culture. But the one that suits an organization  best is a combination of both the cultures meaning to say that  a strong culture that is open for the people to express  their very own (new) ideas. In other words a culture that is agreed by the majority of people but still respects the innovative ideas of the people at times of need.

 

One need not make any extensive surveys of different media to provide evidence for this failure. It is enough to see how sports has managed to gain more coverage in various media over the last few decades vis-a-vis science. One may argue that this is so because there are always some sports events occurring all over the world which naturally draw the attention of media. But contention here is that scientific activity, scientific community and laboratories all over the world can also be turned into what are called ‘media events’ if enough pains are taken by science communicators to achieve this status for science. First and foremost it will require the maximum cooperation of scientists.

For instance, anniversaries of scientists, institutes, organisations and societies, including the World Health Day, etc., can be celebrated; discussions and debates with the concerned scientists organised; and doors of concerned laboratories and organisations thrown open to masses and media.

Be that as it may, intention through this paper is to highlight the essentials and limitations of science popularisation so that there appears a fundamental change in the way of looking at this subject. Hopefully, it will lead to more effective strategies to popularise science among the masses.

Science writing is an art

Science popularisation is mostly done by science- trained persons and professional scientists. It is therefore looked upon more as a scientific activity rather than anything else. But science writing is more of an art rather than a science. It is scientific only in the sense one should have scientific knowledge but all the writing abilities are required to make a good presentation of science. It is due to the present lack of emphasis on the art aspect of science popularisation that this field of activity has suffered to date. Those few scientists or science-trained persons who have consciously or unconsciously known the art of science writing and have practised it, have only been successful in popularising science.

Science is a human activity

The second reason why popular science does not tick with the masses is because it is not projected as a human activity but an activity of scientists who simply believe in the search for truth – and nothing but truth! The human side of science is totally neglected in all popular science presentations. The follies and prejudices of scientists, the emotional life of scientists, the irrational circumstances in which scientific work is often undertaken and discoveries and inventions made, etc., are quite often deliberately not highlighted fearing that it would give bad name to science and scientific research. In short, the human face of science or scientific research is often neglected in popular science presentations. There is therefore a strong need to give science a human face. It would not only mean adding human stories to popular science presentations but also talking about realities in scientific research.

Tip of the iceberg presentation

The third reason why popular science presentations often go wide off the mark and make the audience yawn and go for something else is the inability of science communicators to distinguish between technical report writing and popular science writing, thanks to their scientific training or background. They try to cram into a popular science presentation as much as they know or find out about a subject.

Actually, popular science presentation should be like the tip of the iceberg. It should however make one not only familiar with the tip of the iceberg but also aware of the unseen larger part of the iceberg floating under the water. In other words, it should reveal little about science but enough to make one realise the existence of that science with its entire ramification. It should excite one’s curiosity enough so that one would like to probe further into that science. It should not necessarily tell everything about a science but at the same time it should not miss science.

Some important observations

The author’s experience with popularising science over the years has forced him to arrive at some postulates. They are merely based on experience and intuition. Any research has not been conducted to back them up with facts and figures. In fact, much research is required to prove or disprove them. If in case they are proved, they can easily be called the ‘Laws of Science Popularisation’ because despite the best of our efforts we have not been able to popularise science the way we want among the masses. There must be some hidden laws governing our efforts to popularise science. These postulates are stated as follows:

Postulates of science popularisation

1st : Only those elements of science receive attention in a society, which suit its goals or which inspire awe.

2nd : A science communicator tends to impose his or her limited ideas of science, scientists and scientific research upon the audience.

3rd : The amount of space allotted to science in different media of a country is the index of the quality of life of its average citizen.

4th : The quality of science communication or presentation in a country is directly proportional to the quality of science produced in it.

5th : To popularise science is to humanise science.

One can deduce certain things from these postulates. The first postulate indicates that people at large read science because it serves their purpose or because the subject is topical, sensational or controversial or simply excites their curiosity. A handful only read science for the sake of knowledge per se. Much research is required to identify those subjects so that science could be more effectively popularised. For instance, health science and environment interest people at large, astronomy and space fascinate them, Nobel Laureates, UFOs, etc., are held in awe by them.

The Second postulate is dangerous for science itself. Consciously or unconsciously, the layman imbibes the limited or narrow image of science, scientists and culture of science from the communicator, whether he be Jacob Bronowski or Peter Medawar. Notions such as scientists are mad individuals or scientific research is yet another profession are creations of science communicators. That makes science communicator a very responsible person.

The third and fourth postulates are intuitive relationships between two unrelated things or activities. Further research is needed to prove or disprove these two laws by taking data from different countries. However, one must add here that in India we raise a hullabaloo to increase science coverage in our media at the first available opportunity but it often comes to nothing. Also, while writing a popular science article on a subject one often needs the assistance of a scientist doing research in that very subject. But in India the scientist of the concerned subject is often not available for consultation and as a result our writings lack the necessary quality, verve and colour.

The fifth, the last but not the least important postulate, though obvious, reminds us that we must give science a human face so that masses are not afraid of it. It is the basic aim of science popularisation.

Christmas tree of science popularisation

The aim of drawing the ‘Christmas tree of science popularisation’ is to illustrate the importance of various media that take science to the masses, though every medium has its own significance and a vital role to play in communication. But unless a person climbs up the tree, as his or her interest in science is aroused or increased – in other words, unless one begins to read newspapers, magazines and then books – he or she would not have become fully science literate.

Necessarily, the percentage of people reading books would be very small as the top of a Christmas tree indicates. But it is a must to know this tree because the role of any medium should not be underestimated and every medium should be given equal importance simultaneously. For instance, if a student’s interest in science is aroused by science fair or ‘Jatha’ held in the town, it has to be sustained and maintained by wallpapers, newspapers and even books; otherwise, one’s interest would flag and eventually die. Other supplementing media should be made available to the student in form of public libraries, for instance. So, the Christmas tree of science popularisation needs to be watered and tended carefully to produce a science literate society.

Conclusion

According to the postulates forwarded here there are (as yet unknown) limits to the extent science can be popularised among the masses. It is not possible to have a fully science literate society. Moreover, science communicators need to take into account aforementioned aspects about science popularisation for more effective communication of science to the masses.

ProVFX Visual Effects and Editing School has been written by Pranay Rupani who is a Freelance Writer