As bite-sized plastics increasingly invade our oceans, the past decade has seen a surge in studies seeking to understand how plastic affects the health of humans and wildlife.(1−3) Scientists perceive hundreds of impacts from exposure to plastic, but recent reviews highlight a growing problem in a field aiming to reveal subtle effects: not all claims are supported by evidence, and fewer by evidence in realistic exposure scenarios.(1,2,4) A spate of critical opinions have recently been published, detailing poor quality control(4−7) and a lack of harmonization(8) among the growing pains of the emerging field of plastic and wildlife impacts. In this correspondence, we will not reiterate these criticisms but add to the conversation by positing that mismatches between perception of threats and measurable impacts may be symptoms of unconscious confirmation bias and confounding. In the arms race to publish significant and citable conclusions,(9,10) we argue that real-world context and objective interpretation of results are lacking in the plastic wildlife field. Going beyond what is "good" and "bad" science, there is a danger that confirmation bias may lead to the publication of spurious results, which could be misleading for the field and the public, and erode reputational standing and relevance with policy makers facing pressure to act. By highlighting recent examples, we hope to improve researcher and reviewer practices in the disciplines that study plastic and wildlife interactions.