The ongoing scientific debate around the measurement of microplastics and nanoplastics in the human body highlights the importance of rigorous methodology and transparency in research. Recent critiques of 20 studies in this field have raised questions about the accuracy of their findings, with one scientist estimating that up to half of the high-impact papers could be affected by methodological issues.
While this may seem like a setback, it is actually an example of science working as it should – with the self-correcting process allowing errors to be identified and addressed. However, the scale of the potential problems uncovered suggests there may have been systemic challenges in this relatively young field of study.
The main concerns centre around the use and interpretation of a technique called pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, which appears to have been either misapplied or misinterpreted in some cases. Encouragingly, other methods such as electron microscopy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy have provided robust evidence that microplastics are present in human organs, even if the precise quantities remain uncertain.
Many of the studies in question were conducted by medical researchers and published in medical journals, raising the possibility of a lack of specialist expertise in chemistry. As one scientist noted, this is a rapidly evolving field, and best practices are still being established.
The stakes are high, given the immense public and media interest in the issue of plastic pollution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and until clear, widely agreed standards are set for measuring these tiny plastics, great care must be taken before publishing and reporting on the results.
Worryingly, this scientific debate could be seized upon by bad actors seeking to sow further doubt about the credibility of research, echoing tactics used to discredit the science of climate change. The plastic industry, which is downstream of the fossil fuel industry, may employ similar lobbying techniques to those seen in the past.
Maintaining public trust in science is crucial, especially on issues that transcend traditional political boundaries. The situation in Europe is concerning, but the Trump-era “Restoring Gold Standard Science” executive order in the US, which could be used to disqualify studies from informing government policy, is even more worrying. There are fears that even normal scientific debates and differences of opinion could be weaponised to reject well-established facts.
As the scientific community works to address the methodological issues and establish robust standards, it is essential that the process remains transparent and open to scrutiny. Ultimately, this episode underscores the importance of rigorous, impartial research in addressing the critical challenge of plastic pollution.
