Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not
“I SEE a train wreck looming,” warned Daniel Kahneman, an eminent psychologist, in an open letter last year. The premonition concerned research on a phenomenon known as “priming”. Priming studies suggest that decisions can be influenced by apparently irrelevant actions or events that took place just before the cusp of choice. They have been a boom area in psychology over the past decade, and some of their insights have already made it out of the lab and into the toolkits of policy wonks keen on “nudging” the populace.
Dr Kahneman and a growing number of his colleagues fear that a lot of this priming research is poorly founded. Over the past few years various researchers have made systematic attempts to replicate some of the more widely cited priming experiments. Many of these replications have failed. In April, for instance, a paper in PLoS ONE, a journal, reported that nine separate experiments had not managed to reproduce the results of a famous study from 1998 purporting to show that thinking about a professor before taking an intelligence test leads to a higher score than imagining a football hooligan.
The idea that the same experiments always get the same results, no matter who performs them, is one of the cornerstones of science’s claim to objective truth. If a systematic campaign of replication does not lead to the same results, then either the original research is flawed (as the replicators claim) or the replications are (as many of the original researchers on priming contend). Either way, something is awry.
To err is all too common
It is tempting to see the priming fracas as an isolated case in an area of science—psychology—easily marginalised as soft and wayward. But irreproducibility is much more widespread. A few years ago scientists at Amgen, an American drug company, tried to replicate 53 studies that they considered landmarks in the basic science of cancer, often co-operating closely with the original researchers to ensure that their experimental technique matched the one used first time round. According to a piece they wrote last year in Nature, a leading scientific journal, they were able to reproduce the original results in just six. Months earlier Florian Prinz and his colleagues at Bayer HealthCare, a German pharmaceutical giant, reported in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, a sister journal, that they had successfully reproduced the published results in just a quarter of 67 seminal studies.
The governments of the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, spent $59 billion on biomedical research in 2012, nearly double the figure in 2000. One of the justifications for this is that basic-science results provided by governments form the basis for private drug-development work. If companies cannot rely on academic research, that reasoning breaks down. When an official at America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) reckons, despairingly, that researchers would find it hard to reproduce at least three-quarters of all published biomedical findings, the public part of the process seems to have failed.
Academic scientists readily acknowledge that they often get things wrong. But they also hold fast to the idea that these errors get corrected over time as other scientists try to take the work further. Evidence that many more dodgy results are published than are subsequently corrected or withdrawn calls that much-vaunted capacity for self-correction into question. There are errors in a lot more of the scientific papers being published, written about and acted on than anyone would normally suppose, or like to think.
Various factors contribute to the problem. Statistical mistakes are widespread. The peer reviewers who evaluate papers before journals commit to publishing them are much worse at spotting mistakes than they or others appreciate. Professional pressure, competition and ambition push scientists to publish more quickly than would be wise. A career structure which lays great stress on publishing copious papers exacerbates all these problems. “There is no cost to getting things wrong,” says Brian Nosek, a psychologist at the University of Virginia who has taken an interest in his discipline’s persistent errors. “The cost is not getting them published.”
First, the statistics, which if perhaps off-putting are quite crucial.
The Latest on: Unreliable research
- Polyurethane Dispersions market analysis and in-depth research on size, trends, emerging growth factors and forecasts 2025 on December 17, 2018 at 12:44 am
... reports are provided through intense and repetitive primary and secondary research methods. Further, these reports are validated with industry experts to ensure reliability in the current scenario ... […]
- Designing safe laboratories and research facilities on December 14, 2018 at 12:55 pm
Corporate research and development/biopharma ... This provides opportunities to address reliability, redundancy, maintainability, allowable T/H ranges, specialized testing or validation requirements, ... […]
- Research & Commentary: Green Energy Policies Are Harming California and New York on December 13, 2018 at 10:22 am
A Pacific Research Institute (PRI) analysis on California and New ... They are dramatically increasing the quantity of food humans produce and improving the reliability of the food supply, directly be... […]
- Whey Protein Market Size and Growth Factors Research and Projection to 2025 on December 13, 2018 at 9:16 am
The research report analyzes the market size ... competition from established international vendors as they struggle with technological innovations, reliability and quality issues. The report will ans... […]
- Global Material Handling Robots Market, Market Research Report, Industry Outlook, Market Size, Analysis, Technological Aspects on December 13, 2018 at 3:42 am
(MENAFN - Ken Research pvt. Ltd.) According to the study ... vendors lead the market in terms of quality, durability, reliability, and technological innovations. Huge investments are made ... […]
via Google News and Bing News