3 ms·
This is all true, but think your conclusions are not correct. I don't think this is true for everyone. If it is difficult, and easy to mess something up, then
by FrustratedMonky 3y ago
This is all true, but think your conclusions are not correct.
I don't think this is true for everyone. If it is difficult, and easy to mess something up, then all the more reason to have as accurate results as possible. Fudging data isn't acceptable.
"Everybody in the field knows that experimental biology is difficult and results are untrustworthy"
"Good scientists don't trust something just because it's in Nature/Science/Cell, if they really care about the result then they replicate it before building on it"
-> But, I'm Joe Blow, I'm not setting up a lab to replicate every study I read about. This might be fine for a VC, test it before building something. But it forgets how many people might make smaller decisions based on an article in Nature or Cell.
or Extrema: I just read about the Higgs-Boson, do I need to not trust the results until I can build a collider and replicate it.
- mike_hearn 3y agoIt's not actually fine for VCs. I recall reading somewhere (forget where) that VCs are loathe to invest in biotech because they've been repeatedly burned by startups spending a few million to set up a lab and then failing to replicate the academic result they wanted to commercialize. Getting a startup to the point where you can find out you've been defrauded is expensive, so they prefer to focus on computing where this isn't an issue.