Here's what he suggested: * Assemble a group of five labs, where the leading investigators have an established reputation (tenure should perhaps be a requireme

Here's what he suggested: * Assemble a group of five labs, where the leading investigators have an established reputation (tenure should perhaps be a requirement). Substantial labs with several students are the most desirable participants. * Each lab selects a recent demonstration of a priming effect, which they consider robust and most likely to replicate. * The board makes a public commitment to these five specific effects * Set up a daisy chain of labs A-B-C-D-E-A, where each lab will replicate the study selected by its neighbor: B replicates A, C replicates B etc. * Have the replicating lab send someone to see how subjects are run (hence the emphasis on recency – the experiments should be in the active repertoire of the original lab, so that additional subjects can be run with confidence that the same procedure is followed). * Have the replicated lab send someone to vet the procedure of the replicating lab as it starts its work * Run enough subjects to guarantee power (probably more than in the original study) * Use technology (e.g. video) to ensure that every detail of the method is documented and can be copied by others. * Pre-commit to publish the results, letting the chips fall where they may, and make all data available for analysis by others. I hope that psychology is a field where it is possible to fund such a protocol from grants or from internal school funds. However, that protocol seems to me to be laborious, expensive, and not at all "easy to get".