A little more than 10 months ago, the highly respected journal Science published an article detailing the dangers of environmentally derived microplastic particles on European perch (Perca fluviatilis) larvae. The study reported that ingestion of microplastic particles inhibited hatching, decreased growth rate, and altered feeding preferences and innate behaviors perch larvae. The study further reports that those individuals exposed to microplastics did not respond to olfactory threat cues, greatly increasing their mortality rates.
Almost immediately upon publication, the research was questioned: some critics claimed the paper’s authors never even visited the research station where study was supposed to have been conducted, others claimed that the researchers hadn’t spent enough time at the research station in which to conduct the study. Irrespective of the reasons for their beliefs, an number of scientists expressed concern that the data was fabricated.
In an effort to resolve whether or not the data were fabricated, and independent researcher, Bertil Borg of Stockholm University was hired to investigate the case. His report made clear that the authors were unable to address many problems uncovered during the investigation, and further stated that the authors had made false statements. As of now, Science is retracting the paper, though the University employing the researchers suspected of the fraud has not yet concluded whether or not the researchers are guilty of any misconduct. Irrespective of the university’s decision, a retraction of this nature is going to be devastating for the careers of these scientists. They’re done being able to obtain funding for the foreseeable future, and if they are dismissed by their university, will likely by unable to obtain faculty appointments at anyplace other than a community college.
The Reactionary Researcher Blog 
Leave a comment