Earlier this year, there was a big environmental story about how juvenile fish were eating bits of plastic instead of their normal food and it was killing them. Here are some links:
- Fish eat plastic like teens eat fast food, researchers say
- How Plastic In The Ocean Is Contaminating Your Seafood
- Fish prefer to eat plastic over food – and it is killing them, study suggests
- Young Fish Now Prefers Eating Plastic Over Real Food, Study Finds
- Are we eating plastic-ingesting fish?
- Fish Freaking LOVE To Eat Plastic, And That’s A Problem
- Baby Fish Prefer Plastic Over Natural Food
The uproar was such that the use of plastic microbeads in toothpastes and cosmetics has been severely curtailed if not outright banned. Here, here, here, here, here and here.
Well guess what. From today's Retraction Watch:
Stolen data prompts Science to flag debated study of fish and plastics
In August, Science told us it was considering adding an Expression of Concern to a high-profile paper about how human pollution is harming fish — and yesterday, the journal did it.
The move comes after a group of researchers alleged the paper contains missing data, and the authors followed a problematic methodology. In September, however, the co-authors’ institution, Uppsala University in Sweden, concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to launch a misconduct investigation.
The notice from Science stems from the theft of a computer carrying some of the paper’s raw data, making it impossible to reproduce some of its findings:
In the 3 June issue, Science published the Report “Environmentally relevant concentrations of microplastic particles influence larval fish ecology” by Oona M. Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv (1). The authors have notified Science of the theft of the computer on which the raw data for the paper were stored. These data were not backed up on any other device nor deposited in an appropriate repository. Science is publishing this Editorial Expression of Concern to alert our readers to the fact that no further data can be made available, beyond those already presented in the paper and its supplement, to enable readers to understand, assess, reproduce or extend the conclusions of the paper.
“Environmentally relevant concentrations of microplastic particles influence larval fish ecology” caught the media’s attention for suggesting fish larvae are eating small particles of plastic rather than their natural prey. It became the focus of scrutiny soon after it was published when a group of researchers raised allegations of misconduct, even submitting a formal letter outlining their concerns.
We contacted corresponding author Oona M. Lönnstedt, and received an out-of-office message.
Heh - oops - laptop stolen and no backup of the data. So no verification. Cherry picked data if not outright fabrication. The whole fish/plastics thing was just another example of wishful thinking. Narrative passing for critical thought -- that is the hallmark of the liberal mind.