Recent findings questioning the accuracy of numerous studies on microplastic levels in the human body highlight a critical tension between scientific rigor and real-world consequences. While self-correction is inherent to the scientific process, the scale of methodological errors – with some estimates suggesting up to half of high-impact papers in the field may be affected – points to a systemic issue demanding immediate attention. The core problem lies in the measurement of micro- and nanoplastics, particularly concerning the correct application and interpretation of techniques like pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.
The Problem with Plastic Numbers
Despite doubts over precise quantities, robust evidence from other methods, such as electron microscopy, still confirms the presence of microplastics in human organs. The controversy isn’t about whether plastics are inside us, but how much, and the uncertainty is being exploited in a climate of declining trust in science.
The field itself is young, with best practices still evolving. Many studies were conducted by medical researchers lacking specific chemistry expertise, which may explain some of the errors. However, the public perception remains that extraordinary claims (plastics inside organs) require extraordinary proof, and any doubt will be magnified in the media and by political actors.
Political Consequences of Scientific Doubt
The timing is critical: trust in science is already under attack across multiple fields, including climate change and vaccinations. This controversy gives ammunition to those who seek to discredit scientific findings for political or economic gain. The plastic industry, closely linked to fossil fuels, has a vested interest in downplaying the severity of plastic pollution and employs similar lobbying tactics.
What’s Next?
Scientists expect a clearer consensus on plastic levels within a few years, but the damage may already be done. This incident will likely be cited by bad actors to discredit future research, regardless of its validity. To prevent such exploitation, wider peer review and standardized measurement protocols are essential before results are published or reported.
The lesson is clear: scientific rigor isn’t just about getting the right answer, but about anticipating how errors can be weaponized in a world where truth is increasingly contested.
This situation underscores how scientific integrity must be defended not only within labs, but also in the public sphere.
