3 ms·

But, this is only one kind of reproduction ineptitude. The process description/definition was not explicit enough. Either a process can or it cannot be reproduc

But, this is only one kind of reproduction ineptitude. The process description/definition was not explicit enough. Either a process can or it cannot be reproduced as specified. There is no middle ground there. This is literally what a proof is. A sequence of reproducible steps. You made an important point in considering that other causal factors can be present besides fraud in science's reproduction problems. But, it appears like this was made to suggest that fraud is not as serious of a problem as it is in the reproduction crisis. If more emphasis is placed in the scientific community on the necessity for proofs, then fraud would stand out like a sore thumb. Until then, it can easily be masked within the lax atmosphere of (a lack of) explicit reproduction specifications.

asdff 6y ago
Typically you don't take a single result with any face value, you hope to see validation in the literature from another source or you set up your own assay and see for yourself. If you were to ask my advisor whether the sky is blue, he would respond that he doesn't believe in anything, and that is a pretty reliable worldview to hold as a scientist. I've had to sometimes step up concentrations quite a bit or veer way off protocol to reproduce a result, and even then it won't look as pretty, but I don't blame the authors for things like that. Maybe their undergrad mixed a higher concentration than instructed that day. The results that get published are the prettiest pictures, your very ugly initial result before optimization is only shown in lab meetings. It does get laid bare eventually. I've heard of a well known PI being investigated by their funding agencies due to a post doc doctoring a western blot result. I heard a story about a grad student who tried to repeat a graduated grad student's protocol. They tried and tried for years without much success, initially blaming their own ignorance given they were a freshman when they started their efforts on the experiment. Eventually, after going back and forth with the former student, the PI, and collaborators, it was revealed the original protocol was outright wrong. In fact, more digging was done and that former students thesis research turned out to be fraudulent. The former student lost their degree and their current job, and the current student wasted two years of their life trying to make something impossible work. It's awful when fraud happens for everyone who is involved, whether intentionally or not. Fraud does tend to shake itself out, but it can take painful time.

asdff 6y ago

Typically you don't take a single result with any face value, you hope to see validation in the literature from another source or you set up your own assay and see for yourself. If you were to ask my advisor whether the sky is blue, he would respond that he doesn't believe in anything, and that is a pretty reliable worldview to hold as a scientist. I've had to sometimes step up concentrations quite a bit or veer way off protocol to reproduce a result, and even then it won't look as pretty, but I don't blame the authors for things like that. Maybe their undergrad mixed a higher concentration than instructed that day. The results that get published are the prettiest pictures, your very ugly initial result before optimization is only shown in lab meetings. It does get laid bare eventually. I've heard of a well known PI being investigated by their funding agencies due to a post doc doctoring a western blot result. I heard a story about a grad student who tried to repeat a graduated grad student's protocol. They tried and tried for years without much success, initially blaming their own ignorance given they were a freshman when they started their efforts on the experiment. Eventually, after going back and forth with the former student, the PI, and collaborators, it was revealed the original protocol was outright wrong. In fact, more digging was done and that former students thesis research turned out to be fraudulent. The former student lost their degree and their current job, and the current student wasted two years of their life trying to make something impossible work. It's awful when fraud happens for everyone who is involved, whether intentionally or not. Fraud does tend to shake itself out, but it can take painful time.