5 ms·

Science to Retract Study on Fish and Microplastics

82 points by bootload 9y ago

rubatuga 9y ago
The significance of this retraction may be too late. Some governments have already banned microplastics.
- danso 9y ago
  I don't think this study was the one that triggered regulatory action. For one thing, this particular study seems to have been published in late June 2016. But U.S. regulatory action took place well before that: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/health/obama-bans-microbeads/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/health/obama-bans-microbeads/
- ouid 9y ago
  The negative impact of microplastics on the environment is not being contested in this retraction. This is not the only study of its kind, and the fact that it was fraudulent is not good evidence that the entire line of inquiry is.
  - blacksmith_tb 9y ago
    Not to mention that the case for microplastics seems to me to be non-existent: I don't doubt manufacturers were interested in using them for marketing, but as a consumer, the prospect of putting tiny pieces of plastic in my toothpaste/soap/etc. instead of other more harmless - to me and the environment - abrasives leaves me cold.
    - wlesieutre 9y ago
      It's not just deliberate use of plastics in stuff that gets designed to go down the drain. We're also shedding plastic fibers into the water by washing synthetic clothing: http://brenmicroplastics.weebly.com/project-findings.html http://brenmicroplastics.weebly.com/project-findings.html
      - blacksmith_tb 9y ago
        Absolutely - but I'm not aware of any sort of regulations limiting the use (or washing) of, say, microfiber polyester (unlike the 'microbeads' I was heaping scorn on). I have mixed feelings about microfibers, they certainly have justifiable uses, I wonder if what we need to solve is how to effectively remove them from the wastewater generated by laundering them.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  The existence of a flawed paper claiming microplastic harm doesn't mean that microplastics are harmless.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    Or that they aren't. It doesn't mean anything. There is no conclusion about the subject matter of the study which it is able to support, and that's why it was withdrawn. Can you cite a study of similar import which tends to contradict this paper's null hypothesis?
    - ricardobeat 9y ago
      A quick search will turn over dozens of years-long studies on the subject. You said it yourself: there is no conclusion on the subject matter based on this retraction, so really nothing to challenge here.
    - dnautics 9y ago
      > It doesn't mean anything That's not true. It is as an indictment of the scientific system that would allow fraud like this to get through because it fit the prevailing narrative.
      - throwanem 9y ago
        To be sure. I meant more specifically in relation to the hypothesis it purported to test, but you're not wrong. These are frightening times. Old certainties are crumbling around us and no one yet knows what new realities will rise to replace them. But we've been through worse times, and come out better in the end. We will do so this time, too.
        dnautics 9y ago
        speaking strictly about science, the community of science has never been in a time like this. To be fair, there have been 'arguably worse' times, but the difficulites of those eras were imposed on the scientific community from without. What is happening now is all from within.
podiki 9y ago
Sadly there are too few retractions and proper responses when it comes to scientific fraud (as anyone that reads Retraction Watch knows all too well). Some more reading about this development Science Mag: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/paper-about-how-microplastics-harm-fish-should-be-retracted-report-says http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/paper-about-how-micro... Another article: https://gizmodo.com/widely-reported-study-on-fish-and-microbeads-might-have-1794800598 https://gizmodo.com/widely-reported-study-on-fish-and-microb... (on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14244017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14244017)
c3534l 9y ago
> Lönnstedt has told Science ... she believed allegations to the contrary are fueled by jealousy. Great, the head researcher responded to serious criticism with the emotional maturity of a child.
louithethrid 9y ago
If i where a industry pr expert and had a product-palett to defend that contains a dangerous product- how hard would it be to find a researcher, willing to sell his/her credibility to torpedo upcoming regulations? For the public - one retracted paper equals - retracting the whole fields status. Maybee, it shouldnt be called retracting. Rather suspended for re-evaluation. I know just words, but words transport the state of the field as a whole.
ReligiousFlames 9y ago
There's an interesting video by Veratasium "Is Most Published Research Wrong?" (Clickbaity title to be sure.) It shows, on the overall statistics of valid/invalid vs. published/unpublished papers, the arbitrary p-value threshold is wholy inadequate to prevent a sizable fraction of published papers from being false positives (invalid but published). https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q
- ReligiousFlames 9y ago
  Perhaps a more human-understandible criterion threshold for publishing would be logarithmic inverse p-value... the closer p gets to 0 (stronger correlation), the bigger log(1/p) gets. This of course is just one aspect of greater issues.
- wyager 9y ago
  Worth noting that the particle physics community requires five sigma of confidence to consider a claim "legitimate", which is vastly higher than almost all other fields and has saved particle physics from making mistakes several times (like with the diphoton excess in 2015).

82 points by bootload 9y ago

rubatuga 9y ago

The significance of this retraction may be too late. Some governments have already banned microplastics.

danso 9y ago
I don't think this study was the one that triggered regulatory action. For one thing, this particular study seems to have been published in late June 2016. But U.S. regulatory action took place well before that: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/health/obama-bans-microbeads/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/health/obama-bans-microbeads/
ouid 9y ago
The negative impact of microplastics on the environment is not being contested in this retraction. This is not the only study of its kind, and the fact that it was fraudulent is not good evidence that the entire line of inquiry is.
- blacksmith_tb 9y ago
  Not to mention that the case for microplastics seems to me to be non-existent: I don't doubt manufacturers were interested in using them for marketing, but as a consumer, the prospect of putting tiny pieces of plastic in my toothpaste/soap/etc. instead of other more harmless - to me and the environment - abrasives leaves me cold.
  - wlesieutre 9y ago
    It's not just deliberate use of plastics in stuff that gets designed to go down the drain. We're also shedding plastic fibers into the water by washing synthetic clothing: http://brenmicroplastics.weebly.com/project-findings.html http://brenmicroplastics.weebly.com/project-findings.html
    - blacksmith_tb 9y ago
      Absolutely - but I'm not aware of any sort of regulations limiting the use (or washing) of, say, microfiber polyester (unlike the 'microbeads' I was heaping scorn on). I have mixed feelings about microfibers, they certainly have justifiable uses, I wonder if what we need to solve is how to effectively remove them from the wastewater generated by laundering them.
erikpukinskis 9y ago
The existence of a flawed paper claiming microplastic harm doesn't mean that microplastics are harmless.
- throwanem 9y ago
  Or that they aren't. It doesn't mean anything. There is no conclusion about the subject matter of the study which it is able to support, and that's why it was withdrawn. Can you cite a study of similar import which tends to contradict this paper's null hypothesis?
  - ricardobeat 9y ago
    A quick search will turn over dozens of years-long studies on the subject. You said it yourself: there is no conclusion on the subject matter based on this retraction, so really nothing to challenge here.
  - dnautics 9y ago
    > It doesn't mean anything That's not true. It is as an indictment of the scientific system that would allow fraud like this to get through because it fit the prevailing narrative.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      To be sure. I meant more specifically in relation to the hypothesis it purported to test, but you're not wrong. These are frightening times. Old certainties are crumbling around us and no one yet knows what new realities will rise to replace them. But we've been through worse times, and come out better in the end. We will do so this time, too.
      - dnautics 9y ago
        speaking strictly about science, the community of science has never been in a time like this. To be fair, there have been 'arguably worse' times, but the difficulites of those eras were imposed on the scientific community from without. What is happening now is all from within.

podiki 9y ago

Sadly there are too few retractions and proper responses when it comes to scientific fraud (as anyone that reads Retraction Watch knows all too well). Some more reading about this development Science Mag: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/paper-about-how-microplastics-harm-fish-should-be-retracted-report-says http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/paper-about-how-micro... Another article: https://gizmodo.com/widely-reported-study-on-fish-and-microbeads-might-have-1794800598 https://gizmodo.com/widely-reported-study-on-fish-and-microb... (on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14244017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14244017)

c3534l 9y ago

> Lönnstedt has told Science ... she believed allegations to the contrary are fueled by jealousy. Great, the head researcher responded to serious criticism with the emotional maturity of a child.

louithethrid 9y ago

If i where a industry pr expert and had a product-palett to defend that contains a dangerous product- how hard would it be to find a researcher, willing to sell his/her credibility to torpedo upcoming regulations? For the public - one retracted paper equals - retracting the whole fields status. Maybee, it shouldnt be called retracting. Rather suspended for re-evaluation. I know just words, but words transport the state of the field as a whole.

ReligiousFlames 9y ago

There's an interesting video by Veratasium "Is Most Published Research Wrong?" (Clickbaity title to be sure.) It shows, on the overall statistics of valid/invalid vs. published/unpublished papers, the arbitrary p-value threshold is wholy inadequate to prevent a sizable fraction of published papers from being false positives (invalid but published). https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q

ReligiousFlames 9y ago
Perhaps a more human-understandible criterion threshold for publishing would be logarithmic inverse p-value... the closer p gets to 0 (stronger correlation), the bigger log(1/p) gets. This of course is just one aspect of greater issues.
wyager 9y ago
Worth noting that the particle physics community requires five sigma of confidence to consider a claim "legitimate", which is vastly higher than almost all other fields and has saved particle physics from making mistakes several times (like with the diphoton excess in 2015).