In a robust defence of scientific inquiry, experts have responded to recent doubts cast on studies detecting microplastics throughout the human body. While the debate may offer a belated Christmas present to the petrochemical industry, it is less surprising within the scientific community, where constructive discussion around microplastic detection has been ongoing for some time. Such debate is entirely normal and essential for the advancement of knowledge, as science progresses incrementally through trial, critique, and improvement of new methods.
The Reality of Microplastics in Human Tissues
Contrary to claims that this area of science is flawed, researchers using well-validated techniques have directly observed microplastic particles in multiple human tissues under microscopes, even identifying specific plastic types. Moreover, microplastics act as vectors, transporting toxic chemicals like phthalates, bisphenols, and brominated flame retardants into the body. Once inside, these chemicals leach out, enter the bloodstream, and contribute to diseases ranging from cancer and heart conditions to IQ loss in children and reduced fertility.
Challenges in Research and Publishing
The response highlights the state of public research, where scarce resources drive intense competition, pushing cash-strapped universities to seek visibility through newsworthy findings. A highly commercialised publishing industry, profiting from publicly funded research without compensating academic reviewers, exacerbates this issue. Media outlets often prioritise sensational results over nuanced methodological debates, though independent scientists continue rigorous, often uncompensated work for societal benefit.
Global Efforts and Analytical Rigour
To address these challenges, the newly launched Countdown on Health and Plastics, sponsored by the Lancet, will coordinate global efforts to improve analyses of microplastics in human tissues and enhance understanding of their health impacts. Simultaneously, the Metabolomics Quality Assurance and Quality Control Consortium (mQACC), with over 140 members worldwide, emphasises the need for exceptional analytical rigour, transparency, and validation in studying micro- and nanoplastics. While some studies may have shortcomings, the broader metabolomics community values high standards and has built structures to uphold them.
The Nature of Scientific Progress
Research reports are primarily written for other researchers, especially in emerging fields where early studies may be small or methodologically imperfect but serve as rallying cries for further investigation. Peer review ensures fair coverage of existing knowledge and appropriate data analysis, but it does not control how findings are interpreted by the media or public. Scientific knowledge is always provisional, with papers contributing to an ongoing conversation rather than stating eternal truths.
As the plastic crisis grows daily, with irrefutable evidence of its negative impacts on humans, animals, and the environment, the call for bold action becomes increasingly urgent. While debates over methodology continue, the proven harms of plastic chemicals underscore the need to take microplastics in the human body seriously, rather than dismissing them outright.
