Everyone agrees that reproducibility in
scientific research is in need of improvement. Few agree on
the best way to achieve it, or even what the term means.
In 2011 and 2012, researchers at Bayer and Amgen announced
that could verify less than a fourth of the topline
conclusions in cutting-edge papers in basic research papers in
cancer biology and other disease. A systematic effort to
replicate psychology studies succeeded with only about a third
replicated. A similar effort in cancer biology could complete
only a fourth of planned experiments, in part because methods
were so poorly described. Of the replicated experiments, only
about half had similar results, and effects were much smaller,
about 15% as large as what had originally been reported.
Funders, journals, research institutions, and individuals have
all launched initiatives to make studies more reliable. These
include better reporting of methods, data sharing, disclosure
of negative results, plus improvements in statistical
analysis, peer review practices and incentives. However,
progress bogs down because science is hard, and no one wants
to think they are wrong. Striving for 100% reproducibility
could stall the dissemination of cutting-edge but less vetted
ideas. This talk explores the advances and challenges in
improving scientific reproducibility.
About the Speaker:
Monya Baker commissions and edits articles
on improving science for Nature magazine, where she has worked
since 2007. Her work has appeared in Nature, Science, Wired,
The Economist, Slate, New Scientist and elsewhere. She has an
Ed.M from Harvard University and a B.A. in biology from
Carleton College.