5 ms·
I don't know about your friend, but there was an option piece, not a scientific study, that reported about that number of "landmark" cancer research papers as b
by epistasis 2y ago
I don't know about your friend, but there was an option piece, not a scientific study, that reported about that number of "landmark" cancer research papers as being "not-reproducible" in industry hands.
However, it did not have methods, it didn't say how they were not reproducible, as in a figure or an effect etc.
The closest thing to a definition of "reproducible" was a footnote on a table defining it as "sufficient to drive a drug development program," which is not at all the same thing as reproducible.
Which is to say, I'm skeptical of these anecdotes.
- passwordoops 2y agoHere is an overview of the three papers of the "Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology" (1). The detailed results are in references 2-3 And if you've only ever encountered a single opinion piece on the reproducibility problem in biology/pre-clinical research, then I highly recommend you do a targeted keyword search. (1) https://elifesciences.org/articles/75830 https://elifesciences.org/articles/75830
- epistasis 2y agoI have read that paper too, but you were referencing the ~25% from your friend in industry, which corresponds to the editorial I cited, not these far more rigorous studies. > then I highly recommend you do a targeted keyword search. There's no reason to be insulting, especially when linking to well known studies.