3 ms·

A lot of the biomedical sciences has similar problems with reproducibility. A survey found similar problems in pharmacology (I think there was one article quoti

A lot of the biomedical sciences has similar problems with reproducibility. A survey found similar problems in pharmacology (I think there was one article quoting someone saying the pharmaceutical companies they were familiar with internally budgeted for about 2/3 of published academic articles to be false) and oncology, and others. Whatever you might have to say about research in psychology, it's also the field primarily turning the microscope on itself. This is part of a tradition in the field -- modern meta-analysis has its origins there. I'm less familiar with physics but there's a lot of problems with reproducibility in many fields.

tomp 5y ago
> A lot of the biomedical sciences has similar problems with reproducibility. Indeed, which is why I specifically singled out cell biology. It's the part of medicine that's closest to physics. Oncology, pharmacology etc. study humans/whole bodies, so not only are the experiments more expensive to run and much more noisy, there's also all kinds of ethical issues. Most of these aren't there, or are at least reduced, when dealing with just cells (I didn't expect "cell cultures take a long time to grow" and "the chemicals used are non-reproducible" issues that sibling comments pointed out, so I guess not quite physics)
- derbOac 5y ago
  To be honest, it would be nice to me to figure out what's different about biomedicine, if that's actually the case. It's easy to say "money" but money is everywhere.