Methods guides based on dogma not science: an example from microbiota restoration

Abstract

Methods guides are useful for new researchers in a field and/or more established researchers needing to stay up‐to‐date with the best available methods. However, issues may arise where methods guides rely on outdated methodologies rather than progressing good science. We use a recent example of two methods guides for avoiding contamination in the emerging field of microbiota restoration studies, where ultraviolet (UV) “sterilization” was recommended for sample collection tubes. UV treatment is not an effective method of decontamination and may actually lead to contamination as a consequence of extended exposure to the aerobiome and other laboratory contamination before, during and after UV‐light exposure. Indeed, the use of appropriate tubes negates the need for such decontamination. Although well intended, guidance materials that contain omissions or inaccurate recommendations may lead to inaccurate research findings. This example highlights the important need for such guides to be based on up‐to‐date scientific evidence, not simply dogma.