The Guardian view on microplastics research: questioning results is good for science, but has political consequences
Errors in measuring microplastic pollution can be corrected. Public trust in science also needs to be shored up
TL;DR
- 20 recent studies on micro- and nanoplastics in the human body are being criticized for methodological flaws.
- One scientist estimates half of the high-impact papers in the field may be affected.
- The primary concern is with the measurement of plastic quantities, specifically the use or interpretation of pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.
- Other methods, like electron microscopy, still provide evidence of plastics in organs, but the quantity is now in doubt.
- Some studies were conducted by medical researchers, potentially lacking chemical expertise.
- This is a young field where best practices are still developing.
- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and public interest magnifies the impact of results.
- The plastic industry, linked to the fossil fuel industry, may employ similar lobbying techniques to discredit science.
- Concerns exist about the US scientific system under Trump, where strict criteria could be used to disqualify studies, turning science's self-correcting nature against itself.