No, Your Beard Is Not Dirtier Than a Dog
What everyone is getting wrong about the “Beards are dirtier (more germs) than dogs” study.
First, a quick “I feel your pain” to all the bearded folk, friends, and fans who have recently taken a hit because of one viral turd nugget circulating the internet.
I saw this mess, then my partner sent me the link as a joke, then her mom sent me a link (also jokingly). You get the idea.
Here’s the truth:
Your beard is fine. Your friend’s beard is fine. We’re all going to be alright, and I pity the next person who tells me that beards harbor dangerous bacteria.
My reaction will be words, lots of them, and annoying. I’ll be seriously annoying.
And as to the title of this article, well… just kidding. How would I know if you’re harboring more pathogens than a dog? You might be a filthy animal. Though to be fair, our dog did roll in shit a couple days ago. (She got a bath shortly after.)
But I digress. Let’s break down what happened.
The Gist (tl;dr)
The study itself is of limited value by scientific standards.
On top of this, many of the reports based on that study both 1) ignore the limited utility and 2) sensationalize the wrong points from that study and subsequent interviews.
If you have a beard and someone important in your life is now freaked out about said beard, send them a link to this article.
Consider it a public service to call out questionable science, and to save innocent beards.
How a Small Study Accidentally Set the Internet on Fire
The other day I was killing a few minutes on Reddit and a story popped up in several subreddits, including r/science and r/beards.
It was about how men’s beards carry more germs, and potentially harmful/infectious germs, than dogs do.
I decide to give this a read since it’s relevant; I have both a big beard and two dogs. Plus, I love a good science article.
This particular article was complete bullshit, as were the majority of those I’ve found since. They all read something like this:
“Men’s beards have more DEADLY germs than DOGS!! A study conducted in Switzerland found 18 out of 18 men had high microbial counts in their beards, some of which are dangerous to humans, while only 23 out of 30 dogs did, with the other 7 having moderate microbial counts.”
Sure, this sounds like science reporting. It includes words like “study,” “Switzerland,” “researchers,” and they give NUMBERS! I mean, who doesn’t love numbers?
And we all know that everything you read on the internet is true, right?!
But in those two sentences alone, I had already identified that the report was utter garbage, and the study was “meh” at best.
I’ve since looked at several other reports on the same study (or on other reports).
The overwhelming majority are complete and total crap, published specifically to capitalize (in clicks) on a now-viral (no pun intended) piece of five-cent reporting.
When I say these reports were crap, I mean the kind you’ll find on my dog’s neck after she rolls in something dead.
Here’s the straight dope:
(Prepare yourself to be wowed by statistical analysis and general nerdology. Are you ready? Let’s do this!)
What the Study is Lacking
Before we dig in, I will admit I didn’t read the study in its entirety because I’m not going to pay $39.95 to read something I can immediately tell is of severely limited value.
But from the abstract, reports, and/or interviews, here is what you can take away:
1. n1=18 (men); n2=30 (dogs)
This is an incredibly small sample size, too small to really produce meaningful results. In fact, it’s barely better than anecdotal.
2. There is no mention of any habits, specific hygiene practices, general lifestyles, beard types or styles, etc. One report mentioned that the researchers “noted the length” of the beards — um, okay?
3. The researcher(s) made comments that allowed/enabled some of this widespread crap reporting.
“Dogs can be considered cleaner than beards” is only fair in the extremely limited context that the study provides. And, the reports don’t sufficiently convey that context.
To give the researchers credit, they did a lot of things right.
- They covered a range of ages of both men and dogs, and a range of dog breeds.
- They admit the limitations of the study, particularly the small sample size and narrow focus.
- They were looking for one thing specifically, and did a halfway passable job of investigating it.
Next, let’s take a look at what went wrong with the media reporting. The issues are many and various.
Pause with me, and channel your inner George Takei as we say, “Oh, myyyyyy!”
Let’s dig in.
The Daily Mail Leaps (First) Without Looking
Let’s start with Daily Mail since they were early in reporting.
Sadly, a ton of other outlets then reported based largely on that BS report, specifically citing it:
“…The Daily Mail reports…”
Really? If you’re going to steal someone else’s reporting, steal something good, FFS.
Clickbait Headlines
“Men with beards carry more germs than DOGS with deadly bacteria in their facial hair, study reveals”
First, the word “dogs” is capitalized, suggesting that it is a high bar against which beards were compared.
Do a study comparing beards to cat paws, and then let’s talk.
Second, the headline says “with deadly bacteria”, and then includes no mention of what type of bacteria in the article itself.
Nothing I can find in the study abstract or any other report anywhere suggests that the bacteria are deadly. Only one even mentioned a general class or category of bacteria, stating they are associated with urinary tract infections.
Deadly? Do tell.
Third, they say the study “reveals” this info. This is quintessential sensational bullshit, suggesting that this information was hidden.
Gaslighting, Limitations, and Omissions
The writers at the Daily Mail even go so far as to gaslight, saying that critics of the study and article “claim the results stem from pogonophobia” (fear of beards).
They don’t mention the limitations of the study, at least not as such.
And they omit a key point of the study’s methods and results. The study was specifically looking for “colony-forming units (CFU) of human-pathogenic microorganisms…”
Translation? “We were looking for people bacteria, and found more people bacteria on people than on dogs.”
Total shocker. </sarcasm>
And even THAT particular result did not reach statistical significance. In other words, “we’re pretty sure that people have more people-harming bacteria than dogs do… but maybe not.” Seriously. This is straight from the study abstract.
I’ll skip the rest of the specific issues, and move on to a brief exercise in skepticism, which many or most media outlets could really use.
What Questions Should We Be Asking?
Here are a list of questions to get the thinking skeptic aware of some of the limitations of the study:
1) Where are all these men from? Where do they live? What kind of residence do they inhabit?
- There’s a big difference between rural areas, densely populated cities, third world countries, or houses, tents, cardboard boxes… Not a criticism of any of these demographics or living situations, but you get the idea.
2) What are their grooming routines?
3) How is their general hygiene? Specifically, how is their oral hygiene?
- Samples were from beard below the mouth.
4) Are they sexually active? Specifically, do they regularly engage in oral sex?
- Some of the bacteria are commonly associated with urinary tract infections.
5) How many of the men had children who live at home?
- Kids are walking, coughing, spitting, sneezing Petri dishes. No offense, parents.
6) How much food mass was found in their beards?
- A possible indicator of how hygienic the particular bearded man is.
7) Was it cold or flu season when this study was performed?
8) What kinds of bacterial counts were found on the faces of clean-shaven men? And women? On other parts of those same bearded men?
- I prefer a controlled study, and there was nothing to suggest controls in any report I found. Literally not a single one.
9) Which kinds of bacteria were found in these men’s beards, and are these otherwise uncommon in/on adult humans?
- DEADLY!!! Of course.
10) Why were only 18 men’s beards sampled? And why only 30 dogs?
11) In fact, why bearded men? Since the study sought to determine whether or not dogs are a concern for transmission of zoonotic diseases when sharing MRI equipment with humans, why was such a narrow human focus chosen for comparison?
- Basically, the bearded men could have been left out of this study completely.
12) What was the standard against which “harmful to humans” was measured?
13) How often, and how recently, were the dogs bathed?
14) Were they indoor or outdoor dogs?
I could go on. Trust me. (Just ask my partner… who has been getting an earful since she sent me the link.)
Who got it wrong?
Here’s the list (so far) of media outlets which specifically cited The Daily Mail’s report online:
- ABC (various local outlets)
- CBS (various local outlets)
- FOX (various local outlets)
- Huffpost (Huffington)
- NBC (various local outlets)
- O — The Oprah Magazine
- Scary Mommy (dot com)
- And many, many others. Google [“Daily Mail” beards germs] to see just how bad this is.
Who got it at least halfway right?
USA Today specifically mentioned limitations of the study, and got the takeaway exactly right.
Interesting Engineering mentioned limitations of the study, as any decent engineering/science outlet should.
And props to RT.com for coming out with direct criticism!
What Can We Learn From All This?
While there are a number of takeaways that can be gained from this onslaught of sensationalist reporting, here are the key ones to remember:
First, The Daily Mail (dot com) isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. (See what I did there?)
Related, if the report/article cites Daily Mail, close the tab. Don’t revisit.
If the report says the takeaway is “men should shampoo their beards more,” or “tell your man to shave,” close the tab. Don’t revisit.
If the report cites the only “controversy” or opposition as a quote from Keith Flett, founder of the Beard Liberation Front, close the tab. Don’t revisit. (No disrespect to Keith.)
Are you starting to see a pattern here?
The ONE takeaway you should have after reading either the study abstract itself, or a decent report on it, is that if dogs are scanned on an MRI machine which is also for human use, the dogs likely pose no threat to the humans.
That’s it. That’s the whole schmear. And even that conclusion is weak because of the small sample size and aforementioned limitations of the study.
The other big takeaway you should have after reading this post — or the slew of terrible reports on the study — is that we all need to think critically.
Because you know the majority of “news media” won’t do it for you.
What’s Next for the Brave and Bearded?
It’s pretty simple, really.
Beard on! Because beards are awesome.
And if someone starts in with “oh, I just found out that beards harbor all sorts of deadly…,” reenact the “Zip it!” scene from Austin Powers 3.
And most important… send them a link to this post.
Like this article, and want to grow a better, bigger, more badass beard? Sign up for the Brigand Brand mailing list, and we’ll show you how.
