Company Overview

Science.bio operated from 2019 to approximately early 2026, with significant interruptions. Originally launched as IRC.bio in 2016 (shut down November 2018 due to SARM regulations), it relaunched as Science.bio in April 2019. The company permanently closed in February 2022, briefly reopened in May 2023, and appears to have finally shut down by January 2026.

This profile is included for historical reference — Science.bio was widely considered the gold standard for research chemical quality control, and its closure created a significant market gap that has not been adequately filled.

⚠️ Status: CLOSED — Do Not Attempt to Purchase

Science.bio is no longer operational. Any websites claiming to be Science.bio should be treated with extreme caution as potential impersonators. A sister site, Botany.bio, may still operate.

Why Science.bio Was the Gold Standard

Science.bio set the bar for transparency and quality in the research chemical market:

Extensive lab reports: Every product batch had full analytical documentation including HPLC chromatograms, mass spectrometry data, and identity confirmation
Batch tracking: Consumers could verify specific batch numbers against published lab reports
ISO-compliant manufacturing: Production processes followed pharmaceutical-grade standards
Named testing laboratories: The labs performing analysis were identified, allowing independent verification
Multiple testimonials from analytical chemists and researchers: Professional scientists validated their quality practices

Scoring Rationale (Historical)

Transparency: 95/100 — Arguably the most transparent research chemical vendor ever to operate. Full lab documentation, named labs, batch tracking.

Testing: 90/100 — Comprehensive testing program validated by independent professionals.

Pricing: 70/100 — Not the cheapest, but pricing reflected the genuine quality infrastructure behind the products.

Reputation: 90/100 — Universally positive reputation in the research chemical community. Multiple independent recommendations from analytical professionals.

Compliance: 40/100 — Despite exemplary quality practices, Science.bio operated in the “research use only” market that the FDA considers legally problematic. Their repeated closures and reopenings likely reflect the regulatory pressure on this business model.

Why This Matters for the Current Market

Science.bio’s closure demonstrates a fundamental tension in the peptide market: the vendor with the best quality practices was ultimately unable to sustain operations, likely due to regulatory pressure. Meanwhile, vendors with far lower quality standards continue to operate. This creates a perverse incentive structure where transparency and quality investment make a vendor more visible to regulators, while opacity and minimal quality practices allow continued operation.

For consumers, Science.bio’s absence means the benchmark for quality has been removed from the market. No current vendor has replicated their level of transparency and documentation.

The Bottom Line

Science.bio showed what good looked like in the research chemical market — and couldn’t make it work long-term. We include this profile to establish what quality transparency should look like, so consumers can evaluate current vendors against a concrete standard rather than an abstract ideal. If a current vendor doesn’t approach Science.bio’s level of documentation and verification, that’s worth knowing.