
Science to Retract Study on Fish and Microplastics - bootload
http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/01/remarkable-ever-accepted-says-report-science-retract-study-fish-microplastics/
======
podiki
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-
micro...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/paper-about-how-
microplastics-harm-fish-should-be-retracted-report-says)

Another article: [https://gizmodo.com/widely-reported-study-on-fish-and-
microb...](https://gizmodo.com/widely-reported-study-on-fish-and-microbeads-
might-have-1794800598)

(on HN:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14244017](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14244017))

------
c3534l
> 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
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
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It shows, on the overall statistics of valid/invalid vs. published/unpublished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)

~~~
wyager
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).

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

~~~
ouid
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
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
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
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.

