Fiber Hub Research Center to Explore Microfibers' Eco Impact, Skeptics Aside
While we know (and have known) that microfibers are bad, we're still fine-tuning the parameters to grade just how bad.
It's one of the reasons why the Microfibre Consortium (TMC) is leading research in North East England exploring textile microfiber's extent and environmental impact. In collaboration with Northumbria University, the multi-stakeholder initiative has unveiled the research hub housing that exploration, hoping to assist the next generation of designers and their future material—ideally non-shedding—innovations.
More from Sourcing Journal
When the Cure Turns to Poison: Renting Jeans Not So Green, French Researchers Find
Fiber Fragmentation Scale Measuring Microplastics Developed in Edinburgh
Achieving Socially Fair Decarbonization in Fashion Supply Chains
'Recent research has shown that the clothes we wear are shedding microfibers throughout their entire lifespan, from textile manufacture through to everyday wear,' the collaborators said in a statement. 'Even microfibers from fabrics considered 'natural,' such as cotton, can have a negative impact on the environment, as manufacturing processes introduce chemical dyes and finishes to the fabric so that it is no longer in its natural state.'
The Fiber-fragmentation and Environmental Research (FiBER) Hub is on the business school's Newcastle campus. The collaboratively created center plans to expand on existing industry knowledge of microfibers by testing a myriad of materials in various environments to measure fiber loss and its subsequent environmental impact.
'The Fiber Hub features state-of-the-art equipment which will allow researchers to understand exactly what and how much fiber a fabric sheds at each stage of its lifespan,' Northumbria said. This will complement existing research primarily focused on microfibers shed during laundry.
'The Fiber Hub collaboration enables TMC to draw on the interdisciplinary skills and technical capabilities of Northumbria and the Impact+ team to expand our knowledge offering to our signatory community,' said Dr. Kelly Sheridan, CEO of TMC and associate professor at Northumbria. 'Through this collaboration, the TMC research team will provide direction to relevant research informed by industry needs, to go beyond what is possible today and create robust, wide ranging and comprehensive lifespan data on fiber fragmentation.'
The hub was set up as part of the Impact+ Network, a multidisciplinary cohort launched in 2023—supported by brands like Asos and funded by UK government(ish) bodies like the UKRI—to challenge how the fashion and textile sector currently measures and assesses environmental impact.
'This strategic partnership reflects the core aim of the Impact+ Network by focusing on microfibers as an overlooked and unmeasured environmental pollutant,' said Northumbria's Dr. Alana James, principal investigator for the project. 'Interdisciplinary collaboration with design and environmental science will enable our research to reduce fiber shedding at the root cause, whilst implementing these insights directly within an industry setting.'
Not everyone is convinced the consortium has the credibility to do such complementary work.
In a report published by the Bremen Cotton Exchange the self-described raw material 'competence center' compiled microplastic research by analyst Veronica Bates Kassatly and statistician Dr. Terry Townsend to explore the effect of micro- and nanoplastics on human health.
In doing so, the duo discovered a conflict of interest.
'The sources tapped by both the French and EU PEFs to evaluate microfiber impact are not scientific organizations, but entities created and funded by vested interests,' Bremen said in a statement. 'The conflicts of interest stemming from the involvement of stakeholders deeply tied to the production of plastic apparel undermine the scientific foundations of environmental legislation and impede the effective management of long-term environmental challenges.'
For context, plastic microfibers are categorized differently than other microfibers, which must be made clear in life cycle assessments (LCAs) standard and the European Union's Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method.
Thus, non-NGOs should be excluded from making such designations for the potential of both scientific and political conflict; which is curious, per the paper, as the TMC is a private company limited by guarantee without share capital, per 2018 incorporation filings.
'Examination of recent filings shows that since inception, the company has averaged 4-6 employees and no fixed assets. TMC has neither the staff nor the facilities to be a research institute,' reads the report, which clarified that none of the opinions expressed are those of the authors or the financiers.
It also goes on to say the TMC lacks credibility for not having published any peer-reviewed research of its own and calls attention to the consortium's signatories—specifically their tax brackets.
'On what grounds TMC is qualified to act as one of only two sources to inform the microfiber complement of what is intended to be an obligatory environmental footprint label applicable to all apparel and textiles sold in France is unclear and raises questions about scientific rigor,' the paper reads, suggesting the TMC work under the belief fiber issues are solved with fiber solutions, and chemistry issues are solved with chemistry solutions. 'If TMC is convinced that functionalizations pose a serious toxicity threat to which nobody is paying sufficient attention, we would agree.'
Sheridan was quick to retort, introducing the Fiber Hub as an exhibit.
'[Fiber Hub] brings multidisciplinary academics from forensic science, design, environmental sciences and big data, all under one roof, and will boost the evidence available to all partners who are involved in achieving the aims of The Microfibre 2030 Commitment,' she wrote in a statement penned earlier today. 'Overall, this suggests that neither the size of an organization, nor its legal set up, influence its ability to coordinate and direct scientific work.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Harvard Fires Honesty Researcher For Research Fraud - Why That's OK
Harvard Business School dismissed prominent researcher and tenured professor Francesca Gino. Harvard Business School has dismissed Francesca Gino, a tenured professor whose research on honesty and ethical behavior ironically became the foundation for one of academia's most damaging fraud scandals. The firing is the first time Harvard has terminated a tenured faculty member in approximately 80 years. For her part, Gino maintains she is innocent. As I'll explain, this is actually good news for marketers and others who use behavioral science to drive better business outcomes. Gino built her career studying why people lie, cheat, and behave unethically. Her most influential work, published in 2012, found that people were more honest when signing truthfulness declarations at the top of forms rather than at the bottom. This research became a go-to example in behavioral economics circles. The study seemed to offer a simple, cost-free way to reduce fraud in everything from insurance claims to tax filings. Companies and government agencies actually implemented "sign at the top" policies based on Gino's findings. Part of the appeal of this intervention was that it seemed intuitive, not unlike Nobel winner Richard Thaler's work showing that changing retirement plans from opt-in to opt-out resulted in higher enrollment numbers. There was one big difference, though. Thaler's interventions worked, resulting in millions more people saving for retirement. But, when organizations tested 'sign at the top' forms, they were surprised that it made no significant difference in honest form completions. Sometimes, even sound research doesn't scale well in real-world settings. But, Harvard's investigation concluded that Gino fabricated some of the data supporting her honesty research. (All parties agree that the various studies include fabricated data, but disagree on its origin.) The study that promised to reduce dishonesty was itself dishonest. For CMOs and executives who regularly apply behavioral science insights to enhance their strategies, Gino's downfall offers three crucial lessons: Gino wasn't a fringe academic—she was a full professor at Harvard Business School, published prolifically, and spoke at major conferences. Her work appeared in prestigious journals and was covered by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. At one point, she was one of Harvard's highest paid employees, earning $1 million per year. If someone with these credentials could publish fabricated data for years, no researcher should be above scrutiny. Cornell's Brian Wansink, known for his food psychology research, produced work with results that were often surprising, simple, and highly actionable. He, too, faced serious misconduct allegations that led to his resignation. The "sign at the top" intervention moved from an academic theory to a tool that organizations implemented widely. How many companies are still using policies derived from fabricated data? The business impact of academic fraud or poorly designed experiments can extend beyond university walls. At least in this case, a signature at the top has no effect on honesty, good or bad. Behavioral science has struggled with a "replication crisis" where many published findings can't be reproduced by other researchers. Most of these are due to legitimate methodological differences, small sample sizes, unrepresentative subjects, etc. Occasionally, though, they stem from statistical manipulation and even fraud. Major scientific research results that are erroneous or fraudulent often get exposed as other researchers try to build on them. Most research doesn't automatically get replicated, though. The rewards for replication experiments are limited. At best, one confirms the original research. At worst, one ends up in a messy dispute with a fellow scientist. But, some researchers do devote time to research integrity. The Data Colada blog, run by three behavioral scientists, has exposed multiple instances of apparent data manipulation across the field. There's also a site, Retraction Watch, that keeps tabs on retracted papers. Ultimately, most bad research with major findings will be rooted out. Either fellow academics will discover the problem, or data-driven businesses will show real world results don't match the findings. Gino's firing shows that publishing questionable findings can have consequences, even for a star professor and researcher. It's a reminder to other researchers to be sure their data is sound. Published research papers almost always have more than one author. I expect we'll see more of these co-authors double-checking the data and methods to be sure they don't get embroiled in a replication/retraction mess later. Smart marketing leaders should exert healthy skepticism about behavioral science claims: Demand multiple sources. Don't base major strategy decisions on a single study, no matter how compelling or well-publicized. Look for independent replications by different research teams. Focus on established science. Robert Cialdini's principles of influence, for example, have endured for decades because they've been tested countless times in real business environments. Newer, flashier findings should be viewed with more caution. Watch for claims that seem too good to be true. A simple change in form design that dramatically reduces dishonesty sounds almost magical. In retrospect, the "sign at the top" finding's elegance should have raised more skepticism. Test everything. The most important behavioral science principle for marketers isn't any specific psychological finding, it's the commitment to testing. What works in a psychology lab or even for another brand may not work for your customers, your product, or your market. The bad data in the original honesty study wasn't spotted for years. Then, Harvard's investigation took years after that, with Gino remaining on the faculty during much of that time. Academic institutions move slowly, business decisions happen quickly. This creates a problematic gap where bad research can influence corporate tactics long before misconduct is discovered and corrected. The Gino scandal shouldn't make business leaders overly wary of behavioral science. Legitimate research in this field has produced valuable insights about consumer psychology, decision-making, and persuasion. Visit any successful travel website, for example, and you'll see behavior-based tactics everywhere. For marketers, the lesson is clear: approach novel behavioral science findings with the same critical thinking you'd apply to any other business intelligence. Evaluate the claims, verify the sources, and test everything. Remember that in both research and business, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
WebMD
3 hours ago
- WebMD
Why We're So Obsessed With Coffee's Health Claims
Or is it? For decades, studies have linked drinking coffee to a longer life and reduced risk of an array of health problems. This week, a big study grabbed headlines linking coffee to healthy aging – women who drank caffeinated coffee were less likely to develop physical problems, cognitive impairment, and chronic diseases as they aged. In January, another study found that morning coffee drinkers lived longer than people who drank coffee later in the day. Another recent analysis suggested those longevity benefits may be limited to those whose coffee doesn't contain a lot of added sugar or saturated fat. Sorry, mocha and Frappuccino fans. Maybe wait for the next study. 'Coffee is like the science version of a celebrity – it makes headlines no matter what,' said Susan Albers, PsyD, a clinical psychologist at the Cleveland Clinic. 'I think that's because it crosses age, culture, and socioeconomic status. It's a substance that everyone enjoys and drinks. And it's one of the most widely consumed psychoactive substances on the planet. We forget that it is actually a drug that is paired with an enjoyable drink.' Three out of four adults in the U.S. report they are coffee drinkers. Half of Americans drink it daily. That's a huge number available to researchers, who can then examine countless variables and look for associations. If we're all doing something and it turns out to be bad for us – or good – public health officials want to let us know. Coffee is loaded with micronutrients, such as polyphenols that have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory benefits, and most coffee also contains the drug caffeine. 'It's such a window into the brain and how what we put in our bodies impacts us on every different level, in positive and negative ways,' Albers said of our own and researchers' seemingly insatiable thirst for more info on coffee. So will there ever be a verdict? We've been let down before. First it was red wine, touted as healthy until recently, when all alcohol has been frowned upon. And like coffee, chocolate seems to forever be switching sides between healthy and unhealthy. What Is It About Coffee Stories That We Just Can't Resist? 'We want to have healthy habits. We want to keep this enjoyable ritual in our lives but make sure that we're not sabotaging our health,' Albers said. 'And so, the more information that we obtain about it, the better. What I think happens is that there might be a little bit of a click bias.' Coffee lovers click to hear scientific confirmation that their habit is healthy, and people who don't like coffee click in hopes of confirming their choice to avoid the drink. Be skeptical of health claims about coffee, especially on social media, advised Jamie Mok, a registered dietitian nutritionist based in Los Angeles, California, and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Unqualified health influencers are everywhere these days, so look for someone with credentials who cites evidence from scientific journals. Extreme or ultra-simple claims made in absolute terms are a sign to keep scrolling. Is There a Consensus About the Health Benefits of Coffee? Yes. But the benefits may not apply to everyone. 'Large observational studies are generally showing a consistent positive association between moderate coffee consumption – so like two to three, maybe four cups a day – and the reduced risk of several diseases, including cardiovascular disease, liver disease, or cancer,' Mok said. Some people may not get all those benefits, she said – like those who already eat a diet rich in polyphenols (you're a blueberry lover, for example), or who aren't drinking black coffee, since that's what is usually studied. And even if you do just have a couple of cups of straight black and only in the morning, it may not be healthy if you have a condition like irritable bowel syndrome or anxiety. Do Your Own Coffee Study 'Coffee really is a gold mine for neuroscientists and psychologists who want to study the brain,' Albers said. 'It gives them this wealth of information about how what we put in our body impacts us. And as a psychologist, that's incredibly exciting and interesting to see how something like caffeine impacts our sleep and our mood.' Both Albers and Mok said that when they are working with clients who have anxiety or sleep problems, caffeine is one of the first places they examine. Most people don't realize the deep impact it can have on other parts of their health, they said. Albers suggested a 'mindfulness drinking' exercise to examine your relationship with coffee that she often shares with clients: Sit down to drink your coffee (riding in the car or on the subway doesn't count). Breathe deeply to smell the aroma, maybe wrap your hands around the cup to feel its warmth, and use the moment to slow down and be present. This can be quick, but run through your senses of taste, touch, smell, sight, even hearing. Before you start drinking, rate your energy level and mood each from 1 to 10. For the next hour, keep track of how you feel, and at the end of the hour do the 1-to-10 rating again for your energy level and mood. 'For many people, after they drink their cup of coffee, their mood boosts significantly,' said Albers, who has authored best-selling self-help books including Eating Mindfully. Repeat the experiment on other days, perhaps taking your coffee black or adding a flavor and see if the results change. You may find that coffee affects your energy or sleep, or it enhances your relationships by adding ritual to a shared coffee date. Maybe coffee helps boost your mood and the steaming cup and familiar taste simply bring you pleasure. 'There isn't anything to feel bad about with that,' Albers said.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sanofi to acquire Blueprint for up to $9.5B
This story was originally published on BioPharma Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily BioPharma Dive newsletter. Looking to further amp up its immunology business, Sanofi has agreed to acquire Blueprint Medicines in a deal that could be worth as much as $9.5 billion. Blueprint's research revolves around an enzyme made by a gene called KIT. This 'tyrosine kinase' enzyme helps control cell development, division and survival, so if it mutates, it can spur the type of uncontrolled cell growth seen in cancer and some rare diseases. Blueprint already has one medicine approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Ayvakit, and is working on a handful of others, two of which are in human testing. The FDA first approved Ayvakit in early 2020 for a rare kind of hard-to-treat gastrointestinal tumor, and specifically for the small subset of adults who have these tumors and certain mutations. Since then, the agency cleared the medicine as a treatment for both the less and more aggressive forms of 'systemic mastocytosis,' an uncommon disorder where a kind of white blood cell known as a mast cell builds up in the bone marrow, digestive tract, skin and other organs. The accumulation can lead to severe inflammation and organ damage. Last year, Blueprint posted $479 million in net product revenue from Ayvakit. The company used to have another marketed cancer drug, Gavreto, which it was co-developing and commercializing with Roche. But Roche ultimately backed away from that alliance, leading Blueprint to sell away rights to Rigel Pharmaceuticals in early 2024. In a statement announcing the deal, Sanofi highlighted the recent trajectory in Ayvakit sales. They were up more than 60%, for example, between the first quarter of 2024 and the same three-month period this year. Blueprint recorded a $67 million net loss in 2024, compared to a more than half-a-billion-dollar net loss in each of the previous two years. The proposed acquisition 'represents a strategic step forward in our rare and immunology portfolios,' Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson said in the Monday statement. 'It enhances our pipeline and accelerates our transformation into the world's leading immunology company.' Hudson added that his company maintains a 'sizeable capacity for further acquisitions.' After being an active dealmaker over the past few years, the French pharmaceutical giant still had close to 8 billion euros in cash and cash equivalents at the end of March. Sanofi bought the diabetes drug developer Provention Bio for almost $3 billion in 2023 and the rare disease-focused Inhibrix for $2.2 billion in 2024. And just last month, it agreed to spend $470 million on Vigil Neuroscience, a Massachusetts-based biotechnology company touting an Alzheimer's disease drug that just finished an early-stage human study. Similar to its Vigil proposal, Sanofi is offering Blueprint investors a so-called contingent value right that could be worth up to $6 per Blueprint share, provided one of the biotech's experimental drugs, 'BLU-808,' hits certain development and regulatory goals. BLU-808 is in mid-stage testing as a possible treatment for chronic hives and an allergy-related condition that causes runny eyes and a congested nose. Blueprint also believes the drug could be useful in treating allergic asthma and 'mast cell activation syndrome.' Another Blueprint drug, elenestinib, is further along, having advanced to a late-stage study for the slower-moving form of systemic mastocytosis. Sanofi's upfront payment of $9.1 billion values Blueprint shares at $129 apiece, reflecting a premium of about 27% from the biotech's closing stock price on Friday. The transaction is expected to close sometime between July and the end of September, according to Sanofi. Andrew Berens, an analyst at the investment firm Leerink Partners, wrote in a note to clients how his team expected Blueprint to land on the 'strategic radar of large pharma' given Ayvakit is on the path to $1 billion or more in annual sales and the company recently raised its financial guidance for this year. However, the deal came sooner than anticipated, ahead of a key data readout for a rival drug from Cogent Biosciences. Cogent's bezuclastinib is also being evaluated as a treatment for systemic mastocytosis, with results set to arrive in the next couple months. Regardless of how strong or weak those results will be, Berens believes they'd serve as a tailwind for Blueprint 'by removing a key overhang and allowing a strategic acquirer to structure a deal based on assumptions about ... market dynamics.' As such, Cogent's data could have propped up Blueprint's share price, 'which may have been an impetus for Sanofi to do the deal now,' Berens posited. Even so, the analyst still sees Sanofi's bid as a positive for Blueprint and this field of research. Cogent shares were down by about 2% late Monday morning. Recommended Reading Blueprint wins key FDA approval for rare disease drug Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
