IIt is true that science is self-correcting. In the long term, this means we can generally have confidence in its results – but in the near term, correction can be a messy process. The Guardian reported last week that 20 recent studies measuring the amount of micro- and nano-plastics in the human body have been criticized in the scientific literature for methodological issues, calling into question their findings. In a sense, this is the usual process done as it should. However, the scale of the potential error—one scientist estimates that half of the highest-impact papers in this field were affected—suggests a systemic problem that should have been prevented.
The danger is that in a febrile political climate where trust in science is actively eroding on issues from climate change to vaccines, even minor scientific conflicts can be used to sow further doubt. Given the enormous public and media interest in plastic pollution, it is unfortunate that scientists working in this field have not shown more caution.
The questions asked mainly relate to measuring the amounts of micro- or nano-plastics in the human body. In particular, one method, thermal gas chromatography and mass spectrometry, may have been used or interpreted incorrectly. There is still strong evidence through other methods – such as electron microscopy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy – that these tiny plastics are present in our organs. What is in doubt now is how much.
Many, if not all, of the studies in question have been conducted mainly by medical researchers and published in medical journals. It is possible that there was a lack of precision or technical expertise in chemistry. Some scholars have noticed this This is a young fieldBest practices are still being implemented.
But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and public interest in this field means that the results will be seen as unusual in the wider world, whether researchers think so or not. Until clear and widely agreed standards for these plastic measurements are established, great care – and perhaps broader consultation and peer review – will need to be taken before results are published and disseminated in the media. Hopefully the spotlight that shone on the pitch last week will prompt thought and caution for the future.
There are, of course, well-established rules of the game for amplifying and distorting scientific conflicts – attempts to discredit the science of global warming are an obvious example. This is not fair, but this is the world we live in. Scientists are confident that there will be some consensus about the amount of plastics in our bodies soon – perhaps within a few years. But even as the science becomes clearer, this controversy will likely be referenced by bad actors to discredit future findings. After all, the plastics industry It is downstream of the fossil fuel industry It uses many of the same compression techniques.
Concerns about plastic pollution have so far transcended traditional political boundaries. Hopefully this remains true. Even more worrying than the situation in Europe is the scientific system that Trump has taken over in the United States. last year Executive order The paper, titled ‘Restoring the gold standards of science’, warned that strict criteria would be used to prevent studies being used as a guide for government policy. Many are worried It even Regular discussions Differences in viewpoints among researchers can be used to reject large swaths of well-agreed facts. In fact, science’s cherished self-correcting approach could turn against it.