3 ms·

a load of variables that are needed to be controlled in order to get the original experiment to work is kind of a red flag tho. like someone could just keep try

a load of variables that are needed to be controlled in order to get the original experiment to work is kind of a red flag tho. like someone could just keep trying the experiment and then adding another variable they are controlling in order to get the experiment to work. but really they are just running a bunch of experiments and getting lucky at some point. assuming they stop trying to control variables or try and replicate themselves as soon as they get a positive result :)

aaronmck 10y ago
Yes an no. Of course, in something like an animal model it can be really hard to control everything, and the result you find could just be 'luck'. On the other hand, figuring out what variables to control is huge part of science. Say the development of next generation DNA sequencing technologies. People tried a ton of different variables, conditions, reagents, flow cells, etc. And failed and failed. But eventually they controlled the right conditions, optimized the right things, and now the process is done in thousands of labs every day as a routine tool. This is a technology development example, but the same could be said of the conditions needed to make stem cells.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
It's not a red flag, it's reality. Biology is complicated, and no matter what the synthetic biologists tell you :) You use independent methods and good controls to deal with this. This is nothing new, it's been the basis of experimental science for decades. If you're allowed to publish without doing this, the field has failed. Molecular biology, in particular, has flourished because of the effectiveness of genetic controls. Mutants are highly reproducible (you just send out seed, cultures, or live specimens), verifiable (sequencing), and combinatoric (crossing).
Fomite 10y ago
Eh... If adding a variable changes the actually effect being estimated, then it may indeed have been worth adding. If it doesn't, they'll just eat away at their precision.

aaronmck 10y ago

Yes an no. Of course, in something like an animal model it can be really hard to control everything, and the result you find could just be 'luck'. On the other hand, figuring out what variables to control is huge part of science. Say the development of next generation DNA sequencing technologies. People tried a ton of different variables, conditions, reagents, flow cells, etc. And failed and failed. But eventually they controlled the right conditions, optimized the right things, and now the process is done in thousands of labs every day as a routine tool. This is a technology development example, but the same could be said of the conditions needed to make stem cells.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago

It's not a red flag, it's reality. Biology is complicated, and no matter what the synthetic biologists tell you :) You use independent methods and good controls to deal with this. This is nothing new, it's been the basis of experimental science for decades. If you're allowed to publish without doing this, the field has failed. Molecular biology, in particular, has flourished because of the effectiveness of genetic controls. Mutants are highly reproducible (you just send out seed, cultures, or live specimens), verifiable (sequencing), and combinatoric (crossing).

Fomite 10y ago

Eh... If adding a variable changes the actually effect being estimated, then it may indeed have been worth adding. If it doesn't, they'll just eat away at their precision.