This blog is written by Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise. Posts appear Monday & Wednesday.
SPOTLIGHT: Peer-reviewed studies, published six months apart, produce wildly different estimates.
BIG PICTURE: In June 2014, the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published a paper by a team of Spanish researchers. The PNAS website tells us it “strives to publish only the highest quality scientific research,” and that papers “undergo rigorous peer review” beforehand.
Titled “Plastic debris in the open ocean,” the paper acknowledges that the magnitude of this problem is “still unknown.” Its authors synthesized “data collected across the world to provide a global map and a first-order approximation.”
After performing numerous calculations involving 3,000 ocean samples, they concluded that the “global load of plastic on the open ocean surface” is “far less than expected.” In their estimation, it amounts to between “7,000 and 35,000 tons.”
Six months later, a second research paper was published in another peer-reviewed journal, PLOS ONE (which stands for the Public Library of Science). Written by individuals affiliated with reputable organizations in Australia, Chile, France, the US, and elsewhere, its version of reality is dramatically different.
According to this team, at least 268,940 tons of plastic is “afloat at sea.” These people explain their math and their models at some length. Their paper looks impressive and convincing to a layperson.
But let us be honest. There’s a huge difference between a maximum estimate of 35 thousand tons and a minimum estimate of 269 thousand tons.
TOP TAKEAWAY: When research papers published within months of each other reach starkly different conclusions, we need to tread carefully.
→ Receive posts via e-mail by signing up on the right side of this page, above – or by following this blog on Facebook and Twitter.
→ Download or e-mail a PDF of this post by clicking the Print button under Share This below – then select the blue arrow beside PDF at the bottom left.