If your experimental system is so delicate that it can't be reproduced in another location (by expert hands), is it really a good experimental system? To me it

If your experimental system is so delicate that it can't be reproduced in another location (by expert hands), is it really a good experimental system? To me it sounds like a terrible experimental system that is brittle and does not generalize. Let me give an example of a good experimental system: restriction endonucleases. You can download the original papers where EcoRI, BamH, etc, were isolated, purified, and demonstrated to show sequence-specific DNA cutting. Any student in any lab in the world can pull those papers- some 40+ years after they were published- and reproduce them using trivial old techniques and map any random plasmid with it. It might work a little worse in an incredibly hot lab, or a very cold one, but you'll still get all the activity you need to demonstrate that you purified a restriction endonuclease. There are a lot of researchers out there who have something in their lab that they use to generate papers, but who are not actually discovering anything that is robust and generalizable- and those are required steps for treating people with cancer reliably at scale. Many results are irreproducible because the authors were incompetent or lying (or outright fooling themselves and others without knowing).