TheBiologySpace.BioBlog

Plastic use is very extensive in the labs we do in AP BIO. We use plastic pippetes for their suction, sauce cups to hold matter, and dishes made of plastic to observe reactions. Much of the time, these plastics are cheap and for one time use. The drawback involves inhibitors that have potential to change the experiment. Glass might be a more sensible altenative and may not retain these inhibitors. The leachates may contain chemicals that would speed up or slow down any reactions or could negate any substances stowed in the plastic and hamper the outcome. Now, scientists will have to account for a margin of error and be expected to use other disinfectants which leave no trace or inhibitors. They could be forced to rely solely on more expensive glass and disposable plasticware.

So basically scientist started using plasticware instead of glassware because of usuability right? Like its easier to you. But now there are organic material that affects the outcome of an experiment. i would have to predict that scientist will still have to rely on theorems since those have been tested several times with different utensils and have constantly been proven to hold true. Other experiments depending on how many times they were tested with different utensils would probably affect their reliability. Many scientist may have to use the results of previous experiments to do a different experiment and if it doesn’t come out like predicted they could use the validility of the results as a limitation or retest the experiment.

Plastics are used because they are cheap and therefore do not have to be washed and reused. Scientists are efficient (or lazy) and cost-effective when they use plastic. I think this research about plastic will cause many scientists to use more glassware instead of plastic. If scientists are efficient, they also don’t want to redo any experiments due to plastic errors. And they definately don’t want their research to be questioned because of plastic use.

Yes there are some labs I have done where it seems like the data I am collecting is not right. None of the other people in my class would be getting the same results. I would have to say that the equipment on these labs would be off, cause on one lab I dd even the teacher came over and said we were using the equipment wrong but we tried it again and got the same wrong results.

I think that since they just used different equipment, it changed the outcome of the experiment. I think this shouldn’t be reflected on the scientists as their mistake, but that it was the equipment altering the results, and espicially since they all experienced the same problem, it shouldn’t change what other scientists think of them.

I agree with David that it does not always seem that the results of an experiment turn out the way you would expect. I usually think there is some source of human error in the experiment. I never realized that a source of error could be present in ordinary lab equipment such as plastic.

They use plastic ware as opposed to glassware because it’s cheaper and more durable, glassware can break and become dangerous. The presence of these organic leachates will change the way scientists do research in that more scientist will probably start using more glassware as to not affect the results of their experiment. Results already reported by the scientific community might be scrutinized and will have to be redone based on this new knowledge. Scientists in the future might be more cautious about their work and the potential of it being affected by plastic ware.

I agree with David and Alyssa that some of the experiments I have conducted in class did not produce the results I would have expected. I am sure some that the “off” results are contributed by some kind of human error. But other times I think it is caused by the quality of the equipment that was available for use at a high school lab.

Having worked in a microbiology lab before, I found it hard to use glassware in a lab for everything. The disposable plastic miroccentrifuge tubes are one type of lab equipment that would not be replaced by glass because these tubes are small and it would be difficult to clean them and not to mention very time consuming as well.

Of course I’ve thought that the gear given would cause the source of error. Stains, contamination and other outside sources aside, it is fully possible that plastic wear would affect lab results since the substances are touching another chemical. the only pure results would happen if the experiment was done in a vacuum, with the chemicals floating in open space.

It’s funny to see that scientists don’t have the common knowledge of peasant type citizens. of course when plastic is washed, a little bit is rubbed off the surface. The bonds in plastic are fairly weak, which results in “rubbing off” and reduction of size when faced with heat. Yet, since powder is released from plastic when it comes in contact with other materials, its common sense that this powder would contaminate the chemicals. Glassware, however, does not bend or turn to powder when faced with heat or rub off when physically touched. only through physical force can glass be destroyed, which would keep results moderately more pure.

As much of a pain that the care of glassware brings to the scientific world, its properties allow the results to remain pure. Scientists must choose whether accurate data or easily accessible data is the key to their future. Of course the easy answer is that science must pick the accurate observation of data; yet in the modern world that we live in, fast paced and economically minded, the change of gear may seem as a hindrance to many and bothersome to fix. The scientists that Holt had questioned offered that they got the same results as Holt, although they were illogical. This fact shows that the world of science now isn’t truly motivated on questioning the answer, but rather finding one and sticking with it.

It is interesting that just recently these implications have been published. At the end of almost every labs in the past, I have second guessed the results due to a question about the cleanliness and purity of the equipment used during any experiment. Of course glassware is more expensive and as Camden stated, there are times when glassware cannot be used in a realistic situation, but I also believe that the financial priorities might be worth risking if a more constant and concise result is presented in the end.

I am pretty sure there are alot of eperiments that produced results that may have not turned out the way you want. That kind of experiance occured to me as well that resulted me to change my hypothesis… I am sure some lab equipments cannot give precise measurements of liquid along with many other things. That is why we need to use things other than beakers and flasks when measuring.

Why wouldn’t scientist just use disposable plastic equipment? If plastics are so cheap as said by previous people, why not dispose of them after use and use new ones to protect the lab’s integrity? I think that as technology progresses more things will become disposable. Just like the medical field, where most things are used once and disposed of, I think that labs have begun to move in that direction and protect against contamination like these organic leachates.

I think that they’ll need to do more research in just what the plastic can affect. There are many experiments that can be preformed using plastic tools, in which the results won’t be affected. For all those experiments, plastic would be the best option.
For the others, scientists are presented with a problem. They may have to put effort forth to create a new plastic, one that doesn’t affect the experiments. Alternative materials are expensive, and arn’t always a great choice. If plastic affects the experiment, isn’t there a great chance that a rubber pippet might do the same?

I agree with Katie, Alan, and Camden in that plastic is often a cheaper, less troublesome, and somewhat less dangerous alternative to glassware. However, if the greater good of attaining accurate results outweighs the hassle, then glassware should be used instead. Leachates could potentially contaminate data enough to make the it and the resulting conclusion wrong. Previous research may, and probably should, be reviewed for contamination. From now on, scientists might want to consider using glassware for the sake of science instead of the convinience of plastic.

Seriously? this makes me question not only my experiments but every scientist that ever used plastic. To think about all the possible successful outcomes that projected technology to where it is today that now have to be retested. Thats a lot of mulligans.

This study will probable change the ways scientists do their work majorly. This is just one of example of the many possible factors that could be affecting their data without them knowing it. I think with this new study, more scientists are going to be more carefull about how there labs are conducted.

A lot of experiments involving organic material and plastic containers will probably be re-done in order to make sure that the test results were ligit. Otherwise, the data that many scientists have come up with is possible false.

It is much more convenient to use plastic because it doesn’t break, is lighter, and is much more user friendly however with the skew in the results maybe scientists will realize that the easy way out isn’t always the best way and it will cause false information… why would scientists keep using the labware and not comment to others if they were seeing odd results??

The plastic ware has obviously had an affect on this particular experiment. However, that does not mean that it has affected all other experiments. I am sure that some or even many have been affected, but there is no need to redo all experiments done with plastic ware. For the most part, experiments are comparitive and results are all relative to each other. Only few experiments that involve precise measurements for whatever reason whether for medical use or else, need to be redone. In the future, however, I am sure that scientists will suck up the extra cost for glass ware since their jobs depend on the accuracy of their results.

All sorts of things can go wrong in experiments- it happens all the time. I myself have always wondered if plastic is the answer. And why shouldn’t it be? It can be used under a wide variety of circumstances and can, in most all cases, be re-used. But I’ve always been curious about the effect plastic has on other substances, especially in a lab. How do we really know that the results we get from a lab using plastics are one-hundered precent accurate? It may not have occurred to us early on, but how many mistakes have we made and how many trials have we attempted because of the plastic’s effect on the substances? But really, how much does it matter if we’ve been overcoming these obstacles all along?

He is lucky that what he was experiprincing was easily track able though different kinds of testing. Like it might effect other types of reserch, so someone that was doing something that had nothing to do with enzymes could be having weird out comes with other test materials.

i don’t think this discovery of the implications that plastic ware provides will change the results already accepted from past labs. This idea should be taken into consideration when working with chemicals and certain other lab components, but does not have to be followed for ALL labs. So scientists can still use plastic lab equipments for labs. Because glassware is expensive and hard to handle, scientists will take the effect of plastic into consideration but still continue to use them.

after reading the passage, i am surprised that it is only now that they have thought of these implications. i have plenty of times after labs thought that changes could have been possible in results due to contamination and other such factors. i had actually thought that this was no new discovery at all, rather one that was commonly understand because it’s common sense. funny how even this slight thought that so many of us have shared is being ‘discovered’ and published only now. makes me sad to think maybe i could have been credited with this discovery?

Yes, I believe scientists should start using glassware more than plastics, even though plasticware is more convenient for the scientist. I would rather spend more time and conclude with more accurate results that would someday reach the rest of the world. Equipment isn’t something to worry about when a scientist does his experiment. If a scientist truly believes in his work then he should use glassware.

There is actually a very simple solution to all of this. Instead of using cheap plastic lab equipment, use glassware. We shouldn’t be advocating plastics just because they are less dangerous because most, if not all, scientists know how to handle delicate glassware. Also, if scientists are truly dedicated in efficiently discovering conclusions without error in all of their work, then they should go back and re-test all previous labs with glassware. But personally I believe this would be a waste of time and don’t think the scientific community will care one way or another.

many scientists are going to have to re-record data they’ve collected over the years (stating the obvious). this will definitely be difficult because nearly every experiment is used with an object that contains plastic in it. Although it seems like someone could have seen this coming. plastics are oil based and oil has the potential to dissolve or absorb liquids with it’s same polarity, right? scientists should kick themselves in the groin for not thinking of that.. but idk, that’s obviously not my profession. i could, and probably am, wrong.

i think using anything oil-based is not the way to go anymore (not a tree-hugger) but i believe the reason for this is because plastic is oil-based, and perhaps the oils are able to absorb some of the material from the different substances that have it’s same polarity? i don’t know, just a thought..

The most obvious reason for scientists using plastic lab equipment would be that it is cheaper and less time consuming. However, when trying to be accurate, lab equipment should not be the reason for mistaken results. Therefore, when necessary, glassware should be used in the first place instead of having to go back and correcting mistaken data caused by plastic lab equipment. Although it would be more expensive to use glassware, it is better to have more accurate and effective results than to have wrong data because of the lab equipment you used. So in the end, it’s worth it.

I never really thought the lab equipment I used was the source of my errors when doing a lab. I always assumed it was us who would cause a mistake, not the plastic lab equipment. Although I did have my doubts since the equipment in school is reused so much by other people. Of course at least one of those people did not clean out the equipment as accurately and this would definitely alter our results.

I also believe that glassware should be used as much as possible in order to have accurate data. As Camden pointed out earlier, it would be impossible to clean supplies such as syringes and pipettes thoroughly. We should be advocating precise results, not the “easy” results, i agree with “biolo-g” that if scientist are truly dedicated, then they will not mind go back and retesting their results to make sure they are the same.

There were certain times when my experiment had not produced accurate results and some errors could have been made due to the materials given to me. But it also makes sense that our lab equipment is a source of error too but i have never realized that the plastic containers that we use to mess with chemicals could be a source of a problem.

I would think that this discovery would have been made much earlier than now. It seems to me that it is common sense that a substance is able to wash off of the equipment being used in experiments. With this knowledge, tons of past experiments must have been concluded with skewed results.

I completely agree with Victoria. Yes, it will be expensive but the end results will be exceedingly more accurate and well worth the money. Plastic is a cheap way to conduct experiments, but what is the point of an experiment if the results aren’t what they should be? Overall, plastic has a negative effect on the outcome of experiments and their use should be reduced.

It is a good thing that Andrew Holt had the brains to try to find the answer to why the results were so odd instead of just believing they were the actual results. To me this seems like on of those “doh” moments because its such a simple explantion and precation that should be taken, but it has seemed to be overlooked many times.

The thought that scientists are choosing plastics over glassware because they are less expensive is completely absurd. Scientists’ main objective in experimentation should be to be completely accurate in all of their tests. And if that isn’t true, then why do we believe scientists to begin with. Proven from this study, it is obvious that there could be slight risks of false data by using plastic lab equipment. So why are we still debating on this issue? I ask you this. Yes you. You are the one I am asking. If scientists put so much money and work in their studies to begin with, I’m sure they are fine with throwing in an extra bit of cash to replace their data-skewing plastic equipment for reliable glassware.

Well, in my previous blog posts on this story I have been one-sided in favor of glassware. But I’ve decided to be the devil’s advocate here and make an argument for poor defenseless plastic. I guess you could say that glassware is suing plastic for being cheap and data-skewing in the laboratory, and plastic is left there as the defendant lawyer-less. Well, I am plastic’s lawyer. The great Nadeem is plastic’s lawyer. The argument I have here is that although Mr. Holt has proven in his experiment that this leachate from plastic lab equipment caused a change in results, he never tried the experiment with glassware. For all we know, there’s probably something in glassware that also skews the results that scientists haven’t yet discovered. So until scientists try to go in depth on the study of glassware equipment, who are we to say that glassware is more efficient and less risky than plastic. Ultimately of course, the jury is unanimous in their decision of the defendant guilty as charged.

I do not think that the plastic would necessarily drastically affect the outcome of any experiment. Shouldn’t it depend on what is being tested and what factors are involved? Also does anyone know how big the price difference is between glassware and plastic labware?

I do not think it is possible to recollect all of the scientific data that has been obtained over the years. It seems like an extremely difficult task! Scientists should just plan for future experiments.

This new awareness raises very frightening ideas about the true nature of published research out in the world that is guiding other advancing experiments. Should there be a big uproar in the new find? I think not, but careful considerations and perhaps a second look at many findings that utilized these plasticwares should be taken to ensure that what is well to do now, stays well to do.

I agree that scientists merely use plastic equipment to save money. But the money they now have to put-in to complete the experiment again because of the skewed results defeats the purpose of using plastic. This study is a wake-up call to scientists that their experiments may be cheaper, but not neccessarily as thorough or accurate as it has the potential to be had they used glassware all along.

Plastics are much cheaper to use in the laboratory, and they don’t break nearly as easily, but I think that if a scientist is conducting important research they have to take all the precautions they can to keep their data uncontaminated. Has anyone thought of just throwing away plasticware after one use?

I often get weird “off” results, and if I have time, I have a tendency to not record that data and repeat the trial. I am a bad scientist, but I bet many other people do the same thing

I agree with Rachael, it is a very good thing that he chose to pursue this problem rather than just moving on, or many more errors may have been made because of it.

I have not had a major problem with the lab equipment that I’ve used in the past. I’ve had maybe an easier time handling plastic containers, but it’s not a significant difference in the experiment. I can imagine even the smallest contamination can cause bad, unexcpected results in some very detailed experiments though.

Yes plastics are cheaper and alot more durable to shock impact than glass. I remember in the 7th grade we used glassware, and there was 8 broken graduated cylinders in the first semester. However, I think plastic equipment can be used for younger age groups performing simple experiments. The glass equipment should be used by older, more mature students/scientists to perform a more strictly guided experiment.

That just happened to me during our last lab that we had to make. My substrate didn’t really react in the way I wanted it to. Who knows maybe the matrials I used in the project weakened my enzyme or changed the chemical properties of my substrate.

Why is this a discovery? things that are used often are scrutinized for minute defects that picky scientist find out. Instead of replacing plastic with glass, maybe that scientist needs to upgrade to a better plastic equiments… all plastics are not created equal…

I’m not disagreeing with Ph.D’s in the universities of Alberta, but instead of putting the blame on plastic lab equipment. Maybe further research should be poured into the characteristics of enzymes, we accept known theories and worked out formulas to the point in which we don’t even question their validity. These scientists made a novel discovery in that something was wrong in their experiment, but putting the blame on plastic equipment is a superficial conclusion.

scientist conducting experiment use sterile equipment that they throw away after use. Thus, plastic is a great substitute for glass, and is much cheaper to keep in supply than glass, which requires constant cleaning and sterilization. Using plastic or glass is not a economic choice of the institution funding the experiments.

That can’t be a good feeling to discover that for a really long time a lot of experiments were being messed up by the equipment. On the other hand, however, this opens the possibility of more scientific discoveries as researchers redo all of those experiments. For all we know, one of those messed-up experiments will yield the cure for cancer or something like that. Probably it won’t, but one can hope.

Oh no! The entire time I was reading this I couldn’t stop picturing some random scientist conducting some highly important experiment- say for example, I am getting my blood tested- and those compounds end up in my blood sample. Then in a few weeks the doctor’s call me and say “Well, you’re dying- sorry!”
How terrible.

I am wondering about how quickly this problem will get addressed. Obvisouly something that holds this much importance will take time to completely research and analyze- but what if the effects of these chemical compounds from the plastics are harmful to humans. What if we have be unknowingly ingesting them for years- what affects is that having on our bodies?

Now that I think back, there have been a few labs where I wondered what went wrong because I had gotten such weird results. And at the end of those labs I would just conclude that there was a human error that was made or I had maybe written down the data wrong. I never thought to think about the equipment that I was using. It seems reasonable to think that some of the equipment that I had been using weren’t so precise and that might have just ruined my data collection.

Mhm, I agree with Ellie. Sometimes, and I hate to admit this, when I get results that were completely different that what I’d hoped or expected, I would repeat the trial. I am clearly not an honest scientist, for sure. But I wouldn’t have ever suspected the lab equipment to be the cause… I would have thought my measurements were wrong or something.

I’m not sure on the price difference, but it would make some sense that plasticware would be cheaper. At least that’s my assumption. But what I don’t understand, it may be something I’m not seeing or I just may be quite dull tonight, is why the equipment wasn’t washed out sooner, after the other experiments. I suppose they thought water was enough, like us here at the high school, but they are “real” scientists, not high schoolers. Should they know to clean the equiment thoroughly after every use?

I see the point everyone is making about possibly disposing the plasticware after each use, and I have to agree with it. Why risk contamination? Why risk skewed data? Glassware I can see having to be reused, just taking into account the price of each beaker, test tube, and flask, but wouldn’t it be more sensible to use the cheap, plastic equipment and throw it away than use glassware over and over again?

Then again, some scientists may say that the glassware produces truer results than plasticware. As for that, I really cannot give an educated opinion. I’ve not had my fair share of plasticware, not to mention consciously compare them to the glassware we use in class. I suppose they’ll have to set up experiments to see just how badly these “leachates” affect scientific research.

It’s really surprising that they’ve just realized the potential effects of using plastic. I’ve often thought about the outside factors that can affect an experiment, especially lab equipment.
We’ve all heard about certain plastics that release synthetic substances that are cancerous or hormone disruptors, when heated… So why did it not occur earlier that these organic leachates may have an affect on experiments?

Most plastic containers have a number specifying the number of times it can be used before it goes bad. I would think that the same would apply for plastic used in a laboratory environment as well. But, if the results were iffy because of the contaminants in an unused tool then the problem starts even before the products reach the lab table.

I agree with Camden, i know that a lot of the errors done in labs are human errors. Although, sometimes i feel we rely on that instead of looking more into the problem. I cant help but wonder if this could be due to faulty lab equipment.

It’s understood that glass lab equipment would be much more expensive, but compared to the amount of money put into the experiments that were contaminated by the plastic equipment, it would be a more efficient choice.

Victoria brings up a good point, although it may seem they are saving money they put more forth due to the below par results. The accuracy in turn of the experiments is not what they or we have wished for. Maybe spending money on higher priced lab equipment is not such a bad idea.

In being human, I have certainly had my share of slip-ups while conducting a lab experiment. With the mishmash of the inefficiency of man made contraptions and the limitations of humans, one is bound to have skewed outcomes.

I agree with Ellie with the fact that plastics are simply more economical than glass. In a superlative situation, laboratories would be conducting their research using crystal clean glassware. The truth of the matter is it is incredibly expensive and neither universities nor the government is going to shell out millions of dollars just so they can satisfy the need for pristine equipment. Not only that, but it would cost even more money for upkeep of the laboratory apparatus.

Although plastic equipment has the potential to affect experiments, I don’t think that it is possible to discontiue its use. I say this because glassware is not suitable for all labs. In fact, plastic equipment is the more mutlifaceted of the two… unlike glass it can be spun at intense speeds and is not dangerous when broken. I believe that the only solution is the careful selection of appropriate lab equipment.

Yes, glassware will be more expensive, and considering our current economy, scientists will be a little more hesitant in choosing them over the less money-pinching plasticware. But isn’t biological nature more important? Scientists should do all that they can to prevent any errors from occurring so they can grasp a better understanding of all the sciences that influence us, especially when something as important as enzymes, basically holding our lives in their hands, are involved.

That explain everything… I never failed a lab, my equipment failed me! Just kidding, but I have definately noticed different results sometimes from different tools. If I can’t find something during a lab and I’m running out of time I occasionally just use my neighbors and that has been know to skew the data once in a while.

First off Andrew Kim… peasants couldn’t even read. Secondly, Holt discovered other compunds that were “absorbed/bonded” to the plastic though this article is quite interesting. To think of all the experiments done using plasticware and to know that most likely many of the results were incorrect or at least slightly off.

Ellie brings up a good point of using plastic disposably, but it would depend on the amount of equipment needed. If buying plastic is less cost effective because you need a lot of it then glass would be the way to go.

We can completely eliminate using plastics in a lab. There are occasions that you have to use plastic instead of glass. Glass should not be used for storing chemicals like hydroxide because it will slowly etch the glass.

This issue firsy became apparent to me when I went to Washington DC, and the lady that I stayed with wouldnt buy or use anything plastic because she was afraid that it would harm her son. I’ve also heard alot about plastic contamination at my work. Parents are really concerned because studies like this have come out and they want their children’s products to be safe and friendly for them. If we didn’t stop at eliminating plastic in the labratory, but continued eliminating plastic in our everyday lives, we would not only be a safer, cleaner society but also a more environmentally friendly society.

All the time! In fact it makes the experiment that much more interesting, because it means you are learning something new! If every experiment ended in our original hypothesis, then we would not need to experiment. Sometimes I expect the lab equipment to be the cause, because I am only in a High School science room with limited sterility.

Good point Ellie! Not only plastics are raising questions in laboratory experiments,but has anyone thought about how plastic water bottles can affect the water that we put in them?Will this raise more questions about petroleum products in general?

I’m going to have to agree with you Miss Munk. I know if I were a scientist, I would never go redo all my experiments. I would just worry about future experiments.

Who knew plastic was not so fantastic after all..in a society that wants everything to accurate we have been operating with a major flaw. But at the same time, we are very lazy as a whole so it doesnt surprise me that some people dont care to re-do their experiment even thought their data could have been skewed. I believe that whatever the governing board of science is should call for all scientists to retest their results just to be sure that no major flaws were brought upon by plastic.

I ahve conducted an experiment that produced these off results. I think that everyone has, but I wonder how much of that has to do with this sort of contamination issue. I’m going to pay more attention when doing my labs from now on that I use glassware when possible. I don’t suppose they’d ever make a glass pipette? ha

Scientists aren’t poor. They better make sure they do their job right by getting the best possible results. Besides, they’re scientists, so they could just make glass with all their special witchcraft powers.

I dont think you can ever get back some experiments that have been tempored by plastic equipment. It’s sad I think because there may have been a huge discovery waiting in an experiment, and the plastic equipment made it impossible to find it. Just like stated above, the scientist should have planned ahead.

I definitely experienced the problem the most have here: An experiment that produced results did not turn out the way I had expected. We were always recommended to report our errors in the labs that we perform, but I never thought that the lab equipment could be their cause as I had complete confidence in them. I had always assumed that the error was caused by our tendency to make mistakes. Now, it may be necessary to validate that the lab equipment is clean and proper for use so that our data can be accurate.

With the amount of money and hours scientists are putting into their research, you think that it definetly makes sense to use the more reliable glassware equipment versus the cheap plastic kind . Yes it costs more money but it definetly pays off in the end when you are able to gather a better representation of the data resulting in more accurate results.

This article definetly makes you wonder how accurate previous scientists experiments were that use plasticware. Based on this i’m sure scientists are definetly hesistant on previously recorded data. I think that scientists today will definetly be affected by this article and use glassware. Glassware is overall the best choice of equipment and definetly worth the price. If you are going to dedicate your life to discovering on experimentation, wouldnt you want to have the best untampered result-giving equipment? It only makes sense to use glassward because in this case you definetly get what you pay for.

Despite the most concerning issue, the cost of the supplies, it is even more important that we are able to collect valid data, if plastic is the reason that someone is not able to cure a disease? How much of a factor is cost now?

Honestly, if I found out that my lab ware was a reason why I couldn’t collect valid data, I would probably lose my mind, all that effort gone to waste. This is probably the kind of frustration that scientists face when dealing with situations like this.

I think that it would be unreasonable to eliminate plasticware completely in the laboratory. Not all labs will be affected by the organic leachates–scientist should simply take this into consideration when writing their procedures.

I too agree with Rachel. Andrew Holt made a good call to see whether the plastic equipment affected results. I’m surprised though it took us this long to figure out that plastic equipment can skew some data. I’m really glad that somebody discovered this.

Again, agreeing with the majority, it is much more important to be as accurate as possible when it comes to scientific experimentation. If the plastic ware is scewing the data, then the scientists need to resort to glassware, even if it does cost more. The money saved is not worth the time and inaccuracy that an unacceptable experiment.

Yes there have been times where I look in my lab book and see things that are way off than everyone elses. I think this is mainly due to human error. It was like the enzyme lab we did the other day. We didn’t add enough of each substance so no reaction. It wasn’t the equipment, it was our judgement. It could change as well if there was contamination, once again human error for not cleaning it properly. All humans mistakes.

This finding could possibly mean that trillions of bits of data all around the scientific community are corrupt. Although most likely this is a rather small change in data it should still be eliminated. Most likely they make use of this plastic because of the easy clean up it offers, but now that they’re sacrificing data for time they’ll probably switch back. These leachates will probably make most scientists much more careful when it comes to not just the experiment itself but the tools used to conduct the experiment. Most new reports will probably be double checked on materials more than ever before, to make sure that the data being offered is devoid of corruption based on plastic.

I agree with Rachel and Ellie. It is a good choice on Mr. Holt to look further into the issue instead of believing it. He prevented errors and he makes all scietists think more about not over looking smaller details that can be assumed sometimes.

This seems like it would be a very big issue in our scientific world. This observation could lead us to question all results obtained in the lab. Our results are supposed to be our friends, not our enemies, and if a scientist makes a mistake in lab, then how will the public respond?

This shows that the conducting of all past experiments that had used plastic equipment had to have been altered somehow. I agree with parker on this one, we should have thought of this a long time ago. Being biochemists and scientists you would think that they would know a basic fact about plastic, or any type of material.

Of course, there were many times when my results doesn’t match up with my wanted results, but like Kathyrn said, it is due to mostly human error, such as not enough liver for the enzyme activity or not enough catalyst, and etc.

The scientists thought that the enzyme was being inhibited at lower concentrations than it should of been, but that shouldn’t make them try to make the turn the lab results around in order for their data to support their claim. I think Sarah hit the nail on the head, if our materials in aiding the procedures are hindering us from the unblemished truth, then what makes us believe that any data that we have on any scientific discovery valid?

I think it just may be impossible to have completely unreactive equipment. Even when most experiments are not effected, there are always the few, as demenstrated by the University of Alberta. Most of the equipment is chemically made, which still means that they can have chemical reactions. The only solution would be to use the equipment that reacts the least in all cases.

I agree with most people here that say that we should use glassware. I don’t agree with the people who said that we should use disposable plastics because it will just stay in our landfills forever. I rather spend more time cleaning glassware than polluting our precious earth.