Publishing results which are then used as the basis for other work, which are not replicable, is not 'pushing' the frontier of knowledge. It's not even stagnati

Publishing results which are then used as the basis for other work, which are not replicable, is not 'pushing' the frontier of knowledge. It's not even stagnating it. It's sending it backwards as it not only poisons derivative works, but also any relevance of the field itself. At this point it's statistically wiser to dismiss studies in certain fields than it is to assume that their results are meaningful and replicable. That's just ridiculous, but true. And you can perform twin studies for problems like this. I don't think most people understand how these work - you don't need separated twins living in different areas or anything crazy like that. The whole 'trick' is that identical twins are more genetically much more similar than fraternal or non-identical twins. If the results between identicals in something is closer than it is between non-identicals, then there is probably a strong genetic link to the thing being studied. It's just a handy way of automatically controlling for environmental variables, so much as possible. Of course twin studies can also be misleading, but that's another issue.