Since 1955, The Journal of Irreproducible Results has offered “spoofs, parodies, whimsies, burlesques, lampoons and satires” about life in the laboratory.
Among its greatest hits: “Acoustic Oscillations in Jell-O, With and Without Fruit, Subjected to Varying Levels of Stress” and “Utilizing Infinite Loops to Compute an Approximate Value of Infinity.” The good-natured jibes are a backhanded celebration of science. What really goes on in the lab is, by implication, of a loftier, more serious nature.
It has been jarring to learn in recent years that a reproducible result may actually be the rarest of birds. Replication, the ability of another lab to reproduce a finding, is the gold standard of science, reassurance that you have discovered something true. But that is getting harder all the time. With the most accessible truths already discovered, what remains are often subtle effects, some so delicate that they can be conjured up only under ideal circumstances, using highly specialized techniques.
Fears that this is resulting in some questionable findings began to emerge in 2005, when Dr. John P. A. Ioannidis, a kind of meta-scientist who researches research, wrote a paper pointedly titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”
Given the desire for ambitious scientists to break from the pack with a striking new finding, Dr. Ioannidis reasoned, many hypotheses already start with a high chance of being wrong. Otherwise proving them right would not be so difficult and surprising — and supportive of a scientist’s career. Taking into account the human tendency to see what we want to see, unconscious bias is inevitable. Without any ill intent, a scientist may be nudged toward interpreting the data so it supports the hypothesis, even if just barely.
The effect is amplified by competition for a shrinking pool of grant money and also by the design of so many experiments — with small sample sizes (cells in a lab dish or people in an epidemiological pool) and weak standards for what passes as statistically significant. That makes it all the easier to fool oneself.
Paradoxically the hottest fields, with the most people pursuing the same questions, are most prone to error, Dr. Ioannidis argued. If one of five competing labs is alone in finding an effect, that result is the one likely to be published. But there is a four in five chance that it is wrong. Papers reporting negative conclusions are more easily ignored.
Putting all of this together, Dr. Ioannidis devised a mathematical model supporting the conclusion that most published findings are probably incorrect.
The Latest on: Research results
via Google News
The Latest on: Research results
- From international research into teaching collaborationon January 11, 2020 at 4:36 pm
... positive development in funding for research both at national and European level has led to a great number of new research results in multiple areas. However, has this also led to a visible ...
- Official Release of the Developmental PPP Research Resultson December 2, 2019 at 5:47 am
On behalf of the research group, Peng Cheng, director of the PPP Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Fiscal Sciences, announced the official release of Introduction to Developmental PPP. This ...
- Global Research Results: Companies Report Stronger Performance When They Embrace Agilityon November 21, 2019 at 12:02 pm
New research offers a look at why. A global survey commissioned by Workday queried 988 C-Suite executives and leaders, a third of whom have finance leadership roles, about organizational agility. The ...
- First research results from the Estonian-Finnish FinEstBeAMS beamlineon November 15, 2019 at 7:14 am
The obtained high-quality data provides excellent comparison and helps to verify theoretical results derived from modelling of the properties of ionic liquids carried out in our research group," noted ...
- For better research, let mice be miceon November 3, 2019 at 5:07 am
However, new research reveals that the traditional way it is cared for and raised for scientific purposes may have inadvertently been reducing its efficacy as a research model. Along the way, the ...
- Were those experiment results really so predictable? These researchers aim to find outon October 31, 2019 at 10:01 am
Their proposal, laid out in an article in Science's Policy Forum, is part of a wave of efforts to improve the rigor and credibility of social science research. These reforms were sparked by the ...
- Predicting research results can mean better science and better adviceon October 25, 2019 at 5:52 am
We ask experts for advice all the time. A company might ask an economist for advice on how to motivate its employees. A government might ask what the effect of a policy reform will be. To give the ...
- Predicting research results can mean better science and better adviceon October 24, 2019 at 12:12 pm
To give the advice, experts often would like to draw on the results of an experiment. But they don’t always have relevant experimental evidence. Collecting expert predictions about research results ...
- For better research results, let mice be miceon October 24, 2019 at 10:01 am
Previous research demonstrated that when female mice have babies ... "But I also think that creating a more natural living situation for the mice will make the results of these laboratory experiments ...
via Bing News