4 ms·

>"what have we learned in trying to replicate this study, that we didn't already know?" It sounds like you think it doesn't matter if that result was published

by nonbel 8y ago

>"what have we learned in trying to replicate this study, that we didn't already know?" It sounds like you think it doesn't matter if that result was published vs "Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with depressed c-Myc". If I misread that title replace it with whatever is the opposite result in this case. Anyway, like I said elsewhere if it isn't worth trying to replicate, then the original study should have never been funded. How many of these studies just exist as a "jobs program"? It sounds like you think it is most of them, in which case great. We can then easily cut out 90% plus of funding current going towards jobs program stuff and devote it to the <10% that is worthwhile...

Gatsky 8y ago
The effects of Myc have been tested in many different ways since that study. Just type Myc and transcription into pubmed and you can see for yourself. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by making outlandish comments about cutting funding or jobs programs (the idea that cancer research is a jobs program is utterly hilarious!!), but it doesn't really seem you read my comment.
- nonbel 8y ago
  I don't see whats confused you about my post. If no one cares whether the authors got it all wrong and "Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc under conditions xyz" should actually be "Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with depressed c-Myc under conditions xyz", then why was this funded? If someone does care then it should be replicated.
  - Gatsky 8y ago
    > If someone does care then it should be replicated. It is tested in other forms, but isn't generally replicated in the sense you seem to think is paramount. Nor should it be. I'll give you a silly example - would you support a project to go back and replicate electromagnetism experiments performed at the start of the century? Say we do repeat Millikan's oil drop experiment and get a different result (which is actually what happened) - does this mean there is a reproducibility crisis in physics? If we don't repeat the exact experiment, does that mean that Millikan shouldn't have received funding? Why is it that replicating the result the way Millikan did it more useful than doing other related experiments with more sophisticated or different apparatus? The latter is actually MORE useful.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      >"would you support a project to go back and replicate electromagnetism experiments performed at the start of the century?" Yes, of course! That is a great idea. Everyone should be doing this experiment in high school or undergrad science class by now. In fact that seems to be a thing: https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/2dl/pasco/Millikans%20Oil%20Drop%20Manual%20(AP-8210).pdf https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/2dl/pasco/Millikans%20Oil%20Drop%20M... https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/EXP18%20millikan.pdf https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/EXP18%20millikan.pdf
- nonbel 8y ago
  Maybe this makes more sense to you: If no one cares whether the authors got it all wrong and "Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc under conditions xyz" should actually be "Transcriptional suppression in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc under conditions xyz", then why was this funded?

by nonbel 8y ago

Gatsky 8y ago

The effects of Myc have been tested in many different ways since that study. Just type Myc and transcription into pubmed and you can see for yourself. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by making outlandish comments about cutting funding or jobs programs (the idea that cancer research is a jobs program is utterly hilarious!!), but it doesn't really seem you read my comment.

nonbel 8y ago
I don't see whats confused you about my post. If no one cares whether the authors got it all wrong and "Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc under conditions xyz" should actually be "Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with depressed c-Myc under conditions xyz", then why was this funded? If someone does care then it should be replicated.
- Gatsky 8y ago
  > If someone does care then it should be replicated. It is tested in other forms, but isn't generally replicated in the sense you seem to think is paramount. Nor should it be. I'll give you a silly example - would you support a project to go back and replicate electromagnetism experiments performed at the start of the century? Say we do repeat Millikan's oil drop experiment and get a different result (which is actually what happened) - does this mean there is a reproducibility crisis in physics? If we don't repeat the exact experiment, does that mean that Millikan shouldn't have received funding? Why is it that replicating the result the way Millikan did it more useful than doing other related experiments with more sophisticated or different apparatus? The latter is actually MORE useful.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    >"would you support a project to go back and replicate electromagnetism experiments performed at the start of the century?" Yes, of course! That is a great idea. Everyone should be doing this experiment in high school or undergrad science class by now. In fact that seems to be a thing: https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/2dl/pasco/Millikans%20Oil%20Drop%20Manual%20(AP-8210).pdf https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/2dl/pasco/Millikans%20Oil%20Drop%20M... https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/EXP18%20millikan.pdf https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/EXP18%20millikan.pdf
nonbel 8y ago
Maybe this makes more sense to you: If no one cares whether the authors got it all wrong and "Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc under conditions xyz" should actually be "Transcriptional suppression in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc under conditions xyz", then why was this funded?