Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'
BBC ^ | 2/22/2017 | Tom Feilden

Posted on 02/25/2017 7:21:05 PM PST by combat_boots

Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests.

This is frustrating clinicians and drug developers who want solid foundations of pre-clinical research to build upon.

From his lab at the University of Virginia's Centre for Open Science, immunologist Dr Tim Errington runs The Reproducibility Project, which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies.

"The idea here is to take a bunch of experiments and to try and do the exact same thing to see if we can get the same results."

You could be forgiven for thinking that should be easy. Experiments are supposed to be replicable.

The authors should have done it themselves before publication, and all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions.

Sadly nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth.

(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: fakenewsandscience; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last
There it is. The ubiquitous hockey stick of all time.
1 posted on 02/25/2017 7:21:05 PM PST by combat_boots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

It ain’t science if it can’t be replicated.

Even this state school liberal arts grad knows that!


2 posted on 02/25/2017 7:24:42 PM PST by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

One is forced to wonder how many of these alleged results are simply exaggerations or outright falsification calculated to perpetuate grants and other funding...?


3 posted on 02/25/2017 7:24:47 PM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

Fake science
Fake majors
Fake news
Fake GOP


4 posted on 02/25/2017 7:25:01 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

Really? How about studies concerning “evolution,” cosmology, etc.? How does that make the useful idiot flock feel? Worthless, no doubt.


5 posted on 02/25/2017 7:25:03 PM PST by Fungi (Every breath, another five thousand fungal spores enter your body. All five thousand will be named.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

Science?!?

Shenanigans!!!


6 posted on 02/25/2017 7:26:28 PM PST by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

“The issue of replication goes to the heart of the scientific process.”

Unless you have a Consensus


7 posted on 02/25/2017 7:26:32 PM PST by eyeamok (destruction of government records.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

But it is a religion. /s


8 posted on 02/25/2017 7:28:44 PM PST by Reno89519 (Drain the Swamp is not party specific. Lyn' Ted is still a liar, Good riddance to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

…They blinded me with “science!”…


9 posted on 02/25/2017 7:29:53 PM PST by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

Fake science. Example: Climate Change.


10 posted on 02/25/2017 7:29:58 PM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

Gee. Maybe that’s because their research is all BS.


11 posted on 02/25/2017 7:30:48 PM PST by Steely Tom (Liberals think in propaganda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

There was a study done by the government as to why lesbians are fat. I actually consensus that one because they’re fat. Isaac Newton would have signed off on that one


12 posted on 02/25/2017 7:31:27 PM PST by brucedickinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

Really dangerous when it comes to pharmaceutical development.


13 posted on 02/25/2017 7:31:33 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

As long as an experiment’s reported results are Politically Correct they do not require replication- that’s what Political Correctness is all about, comrades.


14 posted on 02/25/2017 7:32:08 PM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

Yep. Soooooo corrupt.


15 posted on 02/25/2017 7:32:11 PM PST by RushIsMyTeddyBear (****happy dance**** BIGLY!!!! Shadilay!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

It is not a secret that pharma companies do not have to send studies that failed to the FDA. They can send only studies that show what they wanted and it is legal.

That’s crazy.


16 posted on 02/25/2017 7:34:15 PM PST by dp0622 (The only thing an upper crust conservative hates more than a liberal is a middle class conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

no surprise whatsoever.

fake news, fake science, it’s all fake, even the printed money.


17 posted on 02/25/2017 7:34:43 PM PST by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots
Yep. If it ain't replicable, it ain't science. Now, in their defense (such as it is) certain of these experiments, especially in the author's field of immunology, are expensive, delicate, and extremely elaborate. That said, "peer review" isn't supposed to be free and easy.

This devolution into appeal to authority isn't new, it's plagued science since Og the Caveman picked up the first test tube. So, by the way, has the appeal to celebrity: on the one hand, Benjamin Franklin bedded half the women in the French court on the basis of scientific celebrity, on the other hand, his friend Antoine Lavoisier lost his head for it. Perhaps we should consider re-instituting the latter. It would add a little spice to the Climate Science fiasco.

18 posted on 02/25/2017 7:34:46 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

Except for climate science, which can’t be reproduced at all. That one is solid as a rock.


19 posted on 02/25/2017 7:35:27 PM PST by samtheman (Imaginary news. Square root of negative news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

Often in these big sponsored “scientific studies” the statistician who compiles the data, and arrives at a “conclusion” does not get paid until their work is reviewed by the sponsor. Often the “sponsor” insists on hiring the statistician of their choice for the project. Remember Mark Twain’s famous dictum “There are lies, there are dam lies and then there are statistics”. Data that does not correspond to a politically correct narrative or threatens the vested position of the “scientists” often gets “massaged” to comply with the needs of the sponsors or the investigators themselves.


20 posted on 02/25/2017 7:36:51 PM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson