4 ms·
I think the central issue is that in many subfields of biology, reproducibility is seen as infeasible or unnecessary, so even with the best of intentions resear
by AlexCoventry 10y ago
I think the central issue is that in many subfields of biology, reproducibility is seen as infeasible or unnecessary, so even with the best of intentions researchers can go on fooling themselves about the reliability of their results for years. Plus of course, without the accountability afforded by reproducible results the bad money can end up driving out the good in funding decisions, and then the good intentions get driven out, too.
Psychology is going through an epistemological crisis for because reproducibility only recently became a hot topic there, and psychology experiments are super-cheap and easy to replicate compared to typical benchwork. But there have been equally dismal results when there's been sufficient incentive to replicate in other fields. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a...
On the other hand, molecular biology and forward genetics have great traditions of reproducibility, and results in those fields tend to be pretty solid.
- nonbel 10y ago>"molecular biology and forward genetics have great traditions of reproducibility" Where is the evidence of this? There is plenty saying otherwise: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/06/study-claims-28-billion-year-spent-irreproducible-biomedical-research http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/06/study-claims-28-billi... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270077/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270077/ http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2016/04/biomedicine_facing_a_worse_replication_crisis_than_the_one_plaguing_psychology.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tens... http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n9/full/nrd3439-c1.html http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n9/full/nrd3439-c1.htm... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R1... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a... http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1411 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1411 http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165 http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jour... http://www.nature.com/news/cancer-reproducibility-project-scales-back-ambitions-1.18938 http://www.nature.com/news/cancer-reproducibility-project-sc... http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/rigorous-replication-effort-succeeds-just-two-five-cancer-papers http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/rigorous-replication-...
- AlexCoventry 10y agoI actually cited the seminal cancer-biology editorial in the GP. I suppose cancer biology is often a form of molecular biology, but I meant more fundamental research into molecular structure and biological function, and in-vitro methods for querying and modifying the structure. CRISPR is a good example.
- nonbel 10y agoCRISPR is a great example. Please see my other post on that topic in this thread, and if you are interested I will go find the refs that led me to that position.
- AlexCoventry 10y agoI would certainly be interested to know the references, but I don't find your argument here convincing. Testing for insertion of a defensive gene by exposing the organism to a hostile environment is an extremely well-developed and reliable method in genetics. But I suppose there must be a million ways to screw it up so I can't rule your mutation scenario out based on what I currently know of the research. On the other hand, I find your skepticism and independent thinking refreshing.
- nonbel 10y agoThanks, not sure if I will get to it today. A lot can be found in my previous posts here on the topic if you want to search.
- nonbel 10y agoActually this thread should do: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10967719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10967719 I see now I had an earlier discussion with tstactplsignore, back then they were seemingly incapable of understanding what I was saying (they kept thinking I denied the endonuclease activity).
- 10y ago