Viewpoint Cite This: Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
pubs.acs.org/est
Superficial or Substantial: Why Care about Microplastics in the Anthropocene? Johanna Kramm,*,∥ Carolin Völker,*,∥ and Martin Wagner*,‡ ∥
ISOEInstitute for Social-Ecological Research, 60486 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway complicated by the multitude of synthetic polymers each having individual physicochemical and toxicological properties.3 Ultimately, the discourse boils down to one key question: How much scientific evidence do we need to take a decision? The community is split with one fraction calling for more research. Another, louder, fraction believes that there is sufficient evidence but arrives at contradictory conclusions, namely, that the environmental risks are either significant4 or superficial.1 The former camp hasso farbeen more successful in communicating their view, probably because it is in line with public preconceptions. Arriving at polar opposites based on the same evidence implies that expert judgment in a situation of information scarcity is prone to bias, especially confirmation and desirability bias.5 Scientific uncertainty divides the community into those favoring action (based on precaution) and those favoring inaction (to avoid overcaution) as the desirable outcome of a risk decision. Indeed, the missing consensus on how much knowledge is necessary and sufficient to take such decision drives this polarization. It also invites other than scientific arguments and results in gridlock, as we have experienced for endocrine disrupting chemicals. n his recent Viewpoint, G. Allen Burton asks why “fellow scientists continue to focus on superficial microplastics risks” SOCIETIES: WHY CARE ABOUT (MICRO)PLASTICS? as “low exposure concentrations dictate there could be no risk”. The public perceives microplastics as a “threat”. In Burton’s He criticizes that scientists overstate the risks of microplastics, view, this is a misperception based on misinformation. By misinform the public, and “adversely influence” policy making.1 contrast, we argue that the public considers more than While we understand Burton’s frustration withat times toxicological information and has legitimate reasons to be sensationalist media reports on microplastics, we also agree concerned. with Hale that Burton’s risk assessment is premature.2 As artificial materials, microplastics are negatively connoted However, the current discourse reveals a much more per se, even more so when found in natural environments. fundamental issue, namely, that the disciplines of environTheir persistence fuels fears about the irreversibility of plastics mental toxicology and chemistry have yet to find their role in pollution. The benefits of using microplastics are perceived as the Anthropocene. The recent microbead bans are illuminating low. Thus, microplastics trigger a range of risk perception for this challenge: societies have decided to take action on an drivers.6 environmental “threat” before a scientific consensus on its In a broader context, the microplastics debate marks the relevance has evolved. We can either bemoan this as being renaissance of the more generaland largerproblem of misinformed or critically reflect on why our disciplines had little plastic pollution, fostering critical reflections on our linear say in it. We do the latter and respond 3-fold to Burton’s “Why economy, including consumerism and a disposable culture. care?” question. Societies have assigned symbolic value to microbeads, which represent nothing but the tip of the iceberg of microplastic and SCIENCE: WHY CARE ABOUT MICROPLASTICS? plastic pollution. Ultimately, plastic pollution is the visible and tangible part of human-made global change. Burton argues that microplastics pose no risk and we can, Acknowledging this symbolism, larger societal aspects play a consequently, abandon their study. As microplastics research is decisive role in the public debate, namely, aesthetics (disturbed still in its infancy, we think this judgment is premature. First, image of nature), ethics (entangled wildlife), and economics exposures are underestimated because they mainly rely on the analysis of large microplastics.2 Second, environmental risk is dictated by exposure and hazard and our knowledge of the Received: February 14, 2018 latter is fragmentary at best. Third, risk assessment is ‡
■
I
■
© XXXX American Chemical Society
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b00790 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Viewpoint
Environmental Science & Technology Author Contributions
(waste of resources). Accordingly, a broad spectrum of arguments has formed public opinion and motivated political action, such as the recent microbead bans. As low-hanging fruits and no regret measures, they may be dismissed as “gesture politics”. However, they also generated momentum to act on plastics pollution, as demonstrated by more comprehensive policies (e.g. the EU’s plastic strategy).7 These developments teach us an important lesson: societies act on certain issues even when science is not ready. We can continue lamenting or reflect on how we can voice our scientific views more clearly.
All authors contributed equally to this work. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS M.W. acknowledges support by the German Federal Ministry for Transportation and Digital Infrastructure and the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (02WRS1378, 01UU1603B, 03F0789D). J.K. and C.V. acknowledge support by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (01UU1603A-C).
■
WHY CARE ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY IN THE ANTHROPOCENE? Plastic pollution is prototypical of the globality and complexity of environmental issues in the Anthropocene. Our traditional research modes have become inadequate for addressing these. Obviously, a risk conception built on single compound testing and few model species will not address real-world chemical mixtures or ecosystem impacts. Accordingly, we face a formidable complexity problem in terms of stressors, biodiversity, and as the microbead case illustrates, societal resonance. In the Anthropocene, complexity is the new normal. Insisting on reductionist approaches and concepts will not only fail to tackle this complexity but also, if continued, marginalize the contribution of environmental toxicology and chemistry in the discourse on global, environmental issues. Accordingly, it is time to rethink and redefine their roles. As there are no simple answers, we need to talk. We need to discuss (1) the usefulness of our current risk paradigm, (2) how much evidence we need to take risk decisions, and (3) new approaches addressing the stressors’ and biological complexity. Leaving the comfort zone further, we need to recalibrate our links to other disciplines (e.g., sustainability, social sciences) and to the public (risk communication). More fundamentally, we need to reflect on what we want to contribute to societal progress. Instead of being a “science of problems”,8 we may want to become a science of solutions, transforming our negative, reactive approach to chemical risks into a positive, prospective one. Fields like Green Chemistry and Safe by Design aim at developing more sustainable chemicals and materials and provide opportunities to explore such new roles. We believe that the arena of plastics pollution offers a window of opportunity to have these discussions. Instead of continuing our “business as usual” and decrying that societies do not listen to our expert voices, we should take this opportunity to adapt our disciplines to the challenges of the Anthropocene.
■
■
REFERENCES
(1) Burton, G. A., Jr. Stressor exposures determine risk: So, why do fellow scientists continue to focus on superficial microplastics risk? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 13515−13516. (2) Hale, R. C. Are the risks from microplastics truly trivial? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 931−931. (3) Lambert, S.; Scherer, C.; Wagner, M. Ecotoxicity testing of microplastics: considering the heterogeneity of physicochemical properties. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 2017, 13 (3), 470−475. (4) Rochman, C. M.; Kross, S. M.; Armstrong, J. B.; Bogan, M. T.; Darling, E. S.; Green, S. J.; Smyth, A. R.; Veríssimo, D. Scientific evidence supports a ban on microbeads. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 10759−10761. (5) Montibeller, G.; von Winterfeldt, D. Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Anal. 2015, 35 (7), 1230− 1251. (6) Syberg, K.; Hansen, S. F.; Christensen, T. B.; Khan, F. R. Risk perception of plastic pollution: Importance of stakeholder involvement and citizen science. In Freshwater Microplastics. Emerging Environmental Contaminants?; Wagner, M., Lambert, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, 2018; pp 203. (7) A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; European Commission: Brussels, 2018; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2df5d1d2-fac711e7-b8f5-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. (8) Tickner, J. A. Science of problems, science of solutions or both? A case example of bisphenol A. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2011, 65 (8), 649−650.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Authors
*E-mail:
[email protected]. *E-mail:
[email protected]. *E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Carolin Völker: 0000-0002-3009-8729 Martin Wagner: 0000-0002-4402-3234 B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b00790 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
