Bioactivity—Symphony or Cacophony? A Personal View of a Tangled Field

TLDR

The field promotes chemically‑active materials that supposedly trigger local biological repair, yet many claims are marketing without evidence and rely on non‑biological processes, creating a dogma that all responsive chemistry is labeled bioactive. The author urges a rethink to restore scientific rigor and confidence in the field to enable genuine progress. The evidence presented for bioactive claims is fundamentally flawed, rendering the claims invalid.

Abstract

In the pursuit of better treatments, the concept of a chemically-active material, responding to local conditions by causing reactions, or reacting to produce substances that are deemed beneficial, seems laudable. Ultimately, the goal appears to be to recruit natural biological processes such that a natural ‘repair’ is effected. This goal seems to be the reason for prefixing “bio-” to many terms with a view to advertising the desire, yet without presenting evidence that it has occurred, or indeed that it is capable of occurring, relying instead on non-biological processes to justify the claims. The dogma is such that all work where local ‘responsive’ chemistry is involved must receive the label “bioactive” to legitimize and promote. Nevertheless, the primary evidence adduced is flawed, and the claim must fail. A rethink to restore scientific sense and confidence in the endeavour is essential if real progress is to be made.