It took more then 10 months, but today the scientists who blew the whistle on a paper in Science about the dangers of microplastics for fish have been vindicated. An expert group at Sweden's Central Ethical Review Board (CEPN) has concluded that the paper's authors, Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv of Uppsala University (UU), committed "scientific dishonesty" and says that Science should retract the paper, which appeared in June 2016.
Science published an editorial expression of concern [DOI: 10.1126/science.aah6990] [DX]—which signals that a paper has come under suspicion—on 3 December 2016, and deputy editor Andrew Sugden says a retraction statement is now in preparation. (Science's news department, which works independently of the journal's editorial side, published a feature about the case in March.)
The report comes as a "huge relief," says UU's Josefin Sundin, one of seven researchers in five countries who claimed the paper contained fabricated data shortly after it came out.
Related: Study Demonstrates Harm to Fish Caused by Microplastics (oops)
Related Stories
A new study has found that the plastic pollution dumped in the oceans has harmful effects in fish:
Scientists have demonstrated for the first time the devastating physiological and behavioral effects on fish exposed to the tiny bits of plastic pollution clogging the world's oceans. Lab experiments with European perch larvae showed exposure to microplastic particles at levels present in seas inhibited hatching of fertilized eggs, stunted larval growth, reduced activity levels, and made them more susceptible to predators, increasing mortality rates, researchers said on Thursday.
"For me, the key finding and biggest surprise in this study was the fact that larvae preferentially ate microplastic particles and literally stuffed themselves with the microbeads," ignoring their natural food source of zooplankton, said marine biologist Oona Lönnstedt of Uppsala University in Sweden.
There is increasing concern among scientists about the effect of pervasive plastic pollution on marine ecosystems. This study was the first to look at direct effects of microplastic particles on fish development, Lönnstedt said.
Also at PBS NewsHour and the Washington Post.
Ecologically relevant data are policy-relevant data (DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf8697)
Microplastics in water not harmful to humans, says WHO report
Microplastics are increasingly found in drinking water, but there is no evidence so far that this poses a risk to humans, according to a new assessment by the World Health Organization.
However, the United Nations body warned against complacency because more research is needed to fully understand how plastic spreads into the environment and works its way through human bodies.
There is no universally agreed definition of microplastics but they are generally considered to be smaller than half a millimetre across.
Plastic production has grown exponentially in recent decades and is predicted to double again by 2025, said the report, which means more beads and threads are breaking down into minute particles and winding up in water supplies, pipes, cups, throats and bellies. Studies suggest bottled drinking water even contains minuscule elements of the polymers used in the container and cap.
Also at CNN.
Related: Car Tyres Cause 55% of Microplastic Waste, According to Study
Paper on Microplastic's Harm to Fish Will Likely be Retracted
Microplastics Found in 90 Percent of Table Salt
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @04:20AM (9 children)
Is there anything those deceitful liars won't lie about for fame and funding? Shit-on-legs, every scientist is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @04:45AM
Lügenwissenschaft!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @04:57AM (4 children)
You just failed statistics.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @05:19AM (3 children)
Nope, got an A in statistics, although I really don't understand the appeal of that class, since the calculator does most of the work. It's glorified data entry, and statistics should be eliminated from the curriculum, just like typing class was eliminated.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 01 2017, @06:48AM (1 child)
Just wondering, are you one of those guys who would scribble a moustache on the Mona Lisa because "art is for fags?" There is a word for you in Russian: "nekulturny." And it's a much stronger word than its direct translation of "no culture" would imply. I wish to crap we had something so direct in English. The closest we have is "philistine" and that doesn't begin to convey the low-key simmering resentment of anything more refined than monster truck shows your type holds.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @07:07AM
Nope, I'm the guy firing a shotgun at the Mona Lisa [smbc-comics.com] in the name of modern art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @08:37AM
Let me guess... That was high school statistics.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by shrewdsheep on Monday May 01 2017, @08:14AM
I am in academia and do have publication pressure, so I think your err... criticism is directed at people like myself. Unfortunately, there are enough stories of scientific misconduct to make your point stick (but incompetence is much more prevalent still). What I can state though is that there is also an intrinsic will to collaborate and share knowledge. OTOH there is temptation of shortcuts, and there are the aggressive types who just try to play the game. All in all, misconduct will always be there (and has always been there) but if the incentives do not evolve into obscene pressure the majority of research is sound (for some meaning of sound). How can I state this? Look at where we are: scientific understanding has evolved a lot, the well-publicized errors have been corrected, and 90% of research (in terms of papers more in terms of actual experiments) is ignored and forgotten eventually (so that they do not partake in the fame game).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @12:48PM
Lying is IMHO a bit too strong word here. As a scientist I know there is often a thin line to be carefully walked. These authors seems to have misstepped a bit during the process.
It seems there are various issues:
1) People at the same research station claim the experiments were never performed. I have plenty of colleagues who don't watch my shoulder continuously when I'm at work, so they also don't know fully what I did or didn't do.
2) Raw data stolen AFTER publication... that's sloppy, but data should also been stored BEFORE publication, which is IMHO also a responsibility of their university AND journal.
3) Not mentioning detergent was washed from plastics. Failure from the authors and also peer reviewers (they should have caught that). Not sure why there was detergent on them, but a control with only the detergent (wash off of the beads) would IMHO be sufficient.
Point 2 is the largest issue, why the article could be retracted... but then again... a lot of research could be retracted as well for the same reason. And repeating those experiments should be done and tested again.
Point 3 should not result to retraction, but an erratum would be required.
I would also not be surprised if "the industry" put effort into getting this paper retracted.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @07:16PM
Without scientists you can kiss your modern way of life goodbye and go back to living in the dark ages. I always find it ironic when someone disparages the entire scientific community while taping away on their computer.
(Score: 3, Touché) by mhajicek on Monday May 01 2017, @06:10AM
How about they retract the plastic instead of the paper.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @07:24AM (2 children)
Somehow, I get the idea that the fish ate the plastic, degraded it a bit more, then pushed it out the other end of the fish.
If anything, accelerating decomposition of the plastic back to the elements it was made from.
I already know I eat a heckuva lotta stuff I can't digest just to put spacers in the system. Stuff like psyllium husk, bran, and a variety of sawdust-type stuff. If I don't do this, I will make some stuff very difficult to pass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @08:09AM
psyllium husk
Psyllium husk can be dangerous stuff, it buggered my joints and put me in hospital, and I don't dare risk eating it ever again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @12:34PM
"Fish" is a bit too far stretch here. Check the article... they are larvae. You can also see the Styrofoam in the animal... I doubt that it will degrade enough the exit the animal again.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Monday May 01 2017, @12:38PM (1 child)
I think the problem is larger than most people realize. Once upon a time, there were relatively few researchers. Professors received some base funding and facilities from their universities, maybe occasional grants, but it wasn't something you went into for the money. Grad students made ends meet by working as teaching assistants, and there weren't that many of them, either. You published periodic papers on your work, but if you had nothing to say, you said nothing.
Over the last few decades, several things have changed:
- Science has become big business. Researchers started spin-off companies. More government funding is available. Some researchers lost their neutrality, and were more interested in fame and fortune than in science. Science became "sexy".
- As the game became more attractive, more people wanted in on it. More students, leading to expanded programs, leading to more students. Universities discovered a new source of income: not only the students, but the grant money. Let's be honest: there just aren't that many people who are really capable of PhD in hard science, math, or engineering. Expanded offering led to a decline in overall standards, especially when lower-tier universities wanted in on the game. But these programs were now financially important to the universities, so standards were secondary.
- Part of the expansion has been into "soft" fields. Most of the research in social sciences, gender studies, in education, and in many other "soft" fields is questionable to begin with, and now we have so much more of it.
- As the fields grew, the university administrators needed some way to evaluate the professors. While they can measure the funds the professors bring in, they had no clue about the content of their work. So how can a clueless administrator to evaluate a technical researcher? Why...by counting the papers they publish! This is the origin of publish-or-perish.
The end result: not enough research topics to go around, wannabe researchers who aren't qualified to study the topics anyway, but they must publish something to get their funding.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @01:22PM
You are probably spot on with your analysis. Everyone (well 95% of everyone) in academia is now a busy body.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday May 01 2017, @02:27PM (1 child)
So what did the contentious paper say? That microplastic is, or isn't, harmful to fish?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2, Informative) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday May 01 2017, @02:43PM
IIRC, that it is harmful to fish. That was why it was controversial. Cleaning plastic out of the oceans to that level is likely cost-prohibitive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @07:18PM (1 child)
Thank goodness we can go back to not giving a shit about the planet or the creatures that inhabit it. For a second there we almost had to think about cleaning up the giant pile of garbage swirling around the oceans.
Close call!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @01:32AM
What are you talking about... this retraction doesn't stop us from cleaning it - just stops us from cleaning it economically. We are still cleaning it organically. Fish eats plastic, man eats fish.
What happens when all the fish dies off you say?! Well we'll just startup some fish fertility clinic.. any angel investors out there interested?