3 ms·
Completely anecdotally, I find this to be true. I do pre-clinical research (disclaimer: for a pharma company), and if you hand me a paper describing some resear
by jonlucc 3y ago
Completely anecdotally, I find this to be true. I do pre-clinical research (disclaimer: for a pharma company), and if you hand me a paper describing some research result in my field, it’s much more likely to reproduce in my hands if it’s from industry. I know from talking to my academic research friends that there are a ton of shortcuts, rotating inexperienced staff, and misaligned incentives. I’m not saying pharma is perfect, but in my experience, they’re more reproducible.
Fwiw, I do not know of any data in my realm which have been molded, cherry picked, intentionally misrepresented, falsified, or otherwise fake or flawed. I don’t work with clinical trial data, so if that were happening, it wouldn’t be on my desk.
- RoyalHenOil 3y agoI used to work in agricultural R&D in the private sector, and we collaborated with several universities. The biggest difference I saw was that universities were very short-term focused, while we were more long-term focused. The universities had a constant churn of personnel, as new PhD candidates appeared and old ones left, whereas our own researchers and technicians stuck around for far longer. Additionally, they were so hyperfocused on grants and papers that they tended to not put as much effort into replication, since that didn't pay their bills. By comparison, we typically repeated our experiments ad nauseum; it was common for us to perform the same experiment twice a year (once in the northern hemisphere and then again in the southern hemisphere) for a decade or more, gradually iterating and refining our processes along the way. Even if we initially got negative results, we'd beat that dead horse for a few years to make sure. Occasionally it turned out not to be so dead after all.