Science is often seen as a self-correcting discipline, allowing for trust in its results over time. However, the process of correction can be complex and messy. Recently, News reported that 20 studies measuring the presence of micro- and nanoplastics in the human body have faced scrutiny for methodological flaws, raising questions about their findings. While this reflects the normal scientific process, the scale of potential errors—one scientist estimates that half of the significant studies in this area may be affected—points to a more systemic issue that could have been avoided.

In a politically charged environment where trust in science is increasingly diminished, particularly regarding climate change and vaccinations, even minor disputes within the scientific community can exacerbate public skepticism. Given the significant interest in plastic pollution, it is concerning that scientists in this field did not exercise greater caution.

The primary concerns revolve around the methodologies used to quantify micro- and nanoplastics in human bodies. Specifically, one technique—pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry—may have been misapplied or misinterpreted. Nonetheless, other methods, such as electron microscopy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, provide robust evidence that these small plastics exist within human organs; what remains uncertain is the extent of their presence.

Many of the scrutinized studies were spearheaded by medical researchers and published in medical journals. Potential shortcomings in chemical expertise and rigor may have contributed to the issues at hand. Some scientists have acknowledged that this remains a nascent field, with best practices still being formulated.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Given the intense public interest, findings in this arena will likely be regarded as significant, regardless of researchers’ perceptions. Until standardized and widely accepted measurement protocols are in place for assessing plastic concentrations, caution is essential. A broader consultation and heightened peer review could be invaluable before results are disseminated and reported. The recent scrutiny should inspire thoughtful reflection and careful future handling.

There is a longstanding pattern of exaggerating and misrepresenting scientific disputes, exemplified by efforts to undermine the credibility of climate science. While this dynamic is unjust, it characterizes the landscape we navigate. Scientists express confidence that a consensus about the scale of plastics in our bodies will emerge in the coming years. Yet, even when clarity is achieved, misinformation from disingenuous sources will likely continue to challenge reputable findings. The plastic industry has ties to the fossil fuel sector and frequently employs similar lobbying tactics.

Concerns about plastic pollution have transcended traditional political lines, which ideally should persist. However, the current state of U.S. science appears to be influenced by politically charged agendas. An executive order last year, termed “Restoring Gold Standard Science,” warned that stringent criteria would exclude certain studies from informing government policy. Many are apprehensive that even normal debates among researchers could be misused to dismiss broad swaths of established knowledge. In this way, the revered self-correcting nature of science could be exploited against it.