Microplastics are bad. People are concerned that there are microplastics in your balls! And that this could epigenetically affect downstream generations. I want to test that theory with a real human, not an animal model.
My plan: collect my own sperm samples over time and do whole DNA preps + basic body metrics. Sperm regenerates approximately every 10w, so planning time series over 10w. Next, inject myself to ~10x the average amount of microplastics, directly into the bloodstream. Continue with the sperm collection, DNA preps, and basic body metrics. Nanopore sequence, and see if there actually ARE any epigenetic changes. Eventually I'll go back down to baseline - are there any lasting changes?
Of course, this is an N=1 experiment, but rather than a metastudy I'm directly changing one variable, so I think it is valuable. We should have more people doing controlled experiments on themselves for the sake of all of society - and as a biologist, I actually have the capacity to design the experiments and scientifically interpret the results. In a way, it's part of civic duty :)
This remains uncontrolled and unblinded experiment complicating the interpretation of the results. For instance, can you be sure that any changes you might see are not caused by (e.g., hormonal, behavioural) changes induced by your knowledge that you just received 10x the average amount of microplastics?
if 10x the average amount of microplastics are showing changes that are approximately equivalent to hormonal or behavioral changes, it's not a significant factor to be worried about.
There are many times where unblinded experiments are still valid. And unfortunately, n=1 means that you can't have controls. The question: "did this intervention, in one person, cause a greater-than-normal increase in epigenetic changes, above baseline?"
>Microplastics are bad
I was just listening to something the other day about how there is essentially no way to study this right now, and the most common method of microplastic detection in samples has been proven largely inaccurate.
Is there some reason we think microplastics are more dangerous than the other nanoparticles of inorganic dust we consume and inhale every day? Serious question - I’ve got enough to worry about and this seems… very low on that list?
yes
Turns out both can be an issue if you’re not “firing on all cylinders”.
Microplastics in your balls are one thing, but do you have concerns about introducing them in your heart and blood-brain barrier?
eh, not that concerned
Please don't. The fact of this being a sample size of 1 and not being taken seriously because of that should be enough reason not to try it, let alone the health risks. I'm sure there are safer tests you could do.
ok, but I don't think people are injecting them directly into their bloodsteam...
“Look, I’m fine!”
Godspeed you legend.