“Remarkable” it was ever accepted, says report: Science to retract study on fish and microplastics

Science is retracting a paper about how human pollution is harming fish, after months of questions about the validity of the data.

The move, first reported by the news side of Science on Friday, follows a new report from a review board in Sweden that concluded the authors were guilty of “scientific dishonesty,” and the paper should be “recalled.”

The report had some strong words for the journal and the university that conducted a preliminary investigation:

…the Expert Group finds it remarkable that Uppsala University, in its preliminary investigation of 31 August 2016, found no support for the presence of dishonesty in the research carried out by Peter Eklöv and Oona Lönnstedt.

…it is remarkable that the article, given these deficiencies, was accepted by the journal Science.

The paper, which appeared last June, received widespread media coverage for suggesting fish larvae prefer to eat plastic over their own natural prey. But shortly after publication, a group of researchers alleged the paper contained missing data and used a problematic methodology.
—-

The fact that Peter Eklöv and Oona Lönnstedt produced no more than weak fragments of the original data and no original traceable data files, forming a basis for the research presented in the article, leads to suspicion that the research was not conducted, at least not to the reported extent.

—-

Retractionwatch article

CEPN STATEMENT

dv said:

a group of researchers alleged the paper contained missing data and used a problematic methodology.

I’m obviously missing something. How can a paper contain “missing data”?

I assume they mean it contains reference to data that is in fact missing.

that’s a shame, because it would be a good thing if we stopped polluting our water with plastics (in any form)

as an aside, there should be a blanket ban, with heavy fines, on the releasing of balloons for human ‘celebratory’ satisfaction

/rant

Arts said:

that’s a shame, because it would be a good thing if we stopped polluting our water with plastics (in any form)

Well in fairness there are still quite a few papers about the negative effects of microbeads in the environment (though not showing what this paper purported to show, that fish eventually prefer to eat microbeads over real food).

dv said:

Arts said:

that’s a shame, because it would be a good thing if we stopped polluting our water with plastics (in any form)

Well in fairness there are still quite a few papers about the negative effects of microbeads in the environment (though not showing what this paper purported to show, that fish eventually prefer to eat microbeads over real food).

it does seem like an outrageous claim…

I suppose the good news is that it did not take long for the problem to come to light. The article was published in June and by August Science alerted readers to a possible problem.
The bad news was that it slipped by them at all. It’s not as though they publish a thousand articles a month and can’t check them all.

dv said:

I suppose the good news is that it did not take long for the problem to come to light. The article was published in June and by August Science alerted readers to a possible problem.
The bad news was that it slipped by them at all. It’s not as though they publish a thousand articles a month and can’t check them all.

most people just read the abstracts…

Arts said:

that’s a shame, because it would be a good thing if we stopped polluting our water with plastics (in any form)

as an aside, there should be a blanket ban, with heavy fines, on the releasing of balloons for human ‘celebratory’ satisfaction

/rant

What about a towelie ban as well

Do microbeads cause autism in fish?

Divine Angel said:

Do microbeads cause autism in fish?

I reckon so you could start such a rumour