The Guardian view on microplastics research: questioning results is good for science, but has political consequences | Editorial

"The Guardian reported last week that 20 recent studies measuring the amount of micro- and nanoplastics in the human body have been criticised in the scientific literature for methodological issues, calling their results into question. In one sense this is the usual process playing out as it should. However, the scale of the potential error one scientist estimates that half the high-impact papers in the field are affected suggests a systemic problem that should have been prevented."

"The risk is that in a febrile political atmosphere in which trust in science is being actively eroded on issues from climate change to vaccinations, even minor scientific conflicts can be used to sow further doubt. Given that there is immense public and media interest in plastic pollution, it is unfortunate that scientists working in this area did not show more caution."

"The questions raised are mainly about the measurement of quantities of micro- or nanoplastic in the human body. In particular, one method, pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, may have either been used or interpreted incorrectly. There is still robust evidence via other methods such as electron microscopy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy that these small-scale plastics are in our organs. What is in doubt now is how much."

Science is self-correcting but corrections can be messy and expose methodological weaknesses. Twenty recent studies measuring micro- and nanoplastics in the human body have been criticised for methodological issues, particularly in the use or interpretation of pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, casting doubt on reported quantities. Other methods, including electron microscopy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, still provide robust evidence that small-scale plastics are present in organs, but the amounts are uncertain. Many questioned studies were led by medical researchers, suggesting possible gaps in chemical or technical expertise and a risk of public misinterpretation.

Read at www.theguardian.com