3 ms·
The problem is worst in fields that don't have reproducibility 'built in' to the field. I do genetics and development, and the main sanity check we have is the
by Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
The problem is worst in fields that don't have reproducibility 'built in' to the field.
I do genetics and development, and the main sanity check we have is the distribution of mutant lines. If you say that mutant X does Y, other people are likely going to see that (or not) when they get their hands on it and start poking around. This strength of working with mutants is at the core of the success of molecular biology. Even if don't set out to confirm someone else's results, you're quite likely to come across some inconsistencies in the course of investigation.
If a field lacks that sort of mechanism, they need to take special care to address reproducibility.
- zouhair 10y agoAdd to that the impossibility to publish negative studies. Science really needs to get its shit straight.
- toufka 10y agoExactly. Most 'good science' start with premises A, B, and C from their respective papers, and go on to show that X is likely true because of this new data. In general, it would be impossible to propose X if A, B, and C were not themselves true - they were the foundations of this new research. In that way, even though the publication of X may not have directly (though often precisely directly) repeat the experiments of A, B, and C, they still have replicated the core concepts. As noted, this does not get rid of the confounding negative effects, where paper D was also used as a (in retrospect, faulty) premise as well. Though no one ever actually comes out and says 'D' is bad. Over time, A, B, and C theories accrue significant weight while D falls off. It's not as explicit as some may like, but in the end the spirit of replication is well and alive.