Most Scientists Can't Replicate Studies by Their Peers

#1
Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

" According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments.

"What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what's actually happened,"
 
#5
There are several threads where we've discussed this. Can find them in search.
I've read several. I guess I haven't seen any counter claims from the scientific community as to whether this is alarming to them or not. Seems to me that a serious scientist would take this reported phenomena, dare I say, seriously.
 
#6
This problem has a lot of implications. People should not believe something just because a so called scientists claims it is true. But those of us who have an interest in the paranormal know that mainstream science has not been reliable on that subject. Other related problems are: 1) poor and misleading science journalism, 2) "scientific journals" with no quality standards, as well as 3) scientific consensus when scientists either forget, don't realize, or don't care that the "consensus" is based on inadequate evidence - this happens more often than you think in obscure fields - not just the well known areas of global warming, nutrition, evolution, naturalism etc.

I've posted a number of related articles on science fraud to this thread:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/261-why-science-is-wrong-about-almost-everything.1505/

Also on my blog:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-...erlife.html#articles_by_subject_bogus_science

Most published research findings are false:
http://www.economist.com/news/scien...w-institute-has-you-its-sights-metaphysicians

Bad Science Muckrakers Question the Big Science Status Quo: "... inherent biases and the flawed statistical analyses built into most 'hypothesis driven' research, resulting in publications that largely represent 'accurate measures of the prevailing bias.'"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfre...ckrakers-question-the-big-science-status-quo/

Linus Pauling: "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." -Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner)."
http://nationalpress.org/images/uploads/programs/CAN2009_Marshall.pdf

"The Lancet": The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf

"Nature": "Ridding science of shoddy statistics will require scrutiny of every step, not merely the last one, say Jeffrey T. Leek and Roger D. Peng."
http://www.nature.com/news/statistics-p-values-are-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-1.17412

Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers: "The publishers Springer and IEEE are removing more than 120 papers from their subscription services after a French researcher discovered that the works were computer-generated nonsense."
http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763

The New England Journal of Medicine: "In August 2015, the publisher Springer retracted 64 articles from 10 different subscription journals “after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and subsequent internal investigations uncovered fabricated peer review reports,” according to a statement on their website.1 The retractions came only months after BioMed Central, an open-access publisher also owned by Springer, retracted 43 articles for the same reason."
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330

realclearscience.com: "A study that surveyed all the published cosmological literature between the years 1996 and 2008 showed that the statistics of the results were too good to be true. In fact, the statistical spread of the results was not consistent with what would be expected mathematically, which means cosmologists were in agreement with each other – but to a worrying degree. This meant that either results were being tuned somehow to reflect the status-quo, or that there may be some selection effect where only those papers that agreed with the status-quo were being accepted by journals."
http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2016/01/11/why_cosmology_is_in_crisis_109504.html

University of Oxford: "Half the world's natural history specimens may have the wrong name."
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-11-17-half-worlds-natural-history-specimens-may-have-wrong-name

NYTimes.com: "Dr. Prasad and Dr. Cifu extrapolate from past reversals to conclude that about 40 percent of what we consider state-of-the-art health care is likely to turn out to be unhelpful or actually harmful."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/s...g-medical-reversal-laments-flip-flopping.html

Retraction Watch
http://retractionwatch.com/

I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How.
http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800

"Der Spiegel protested all of this discussion with the statement, that what they hear is that 'journalists want to earn money, whereas scientists are only seeking the truth.' This brought loud guffaws from all three [professors]. 'Scientists,' answered Dr. Fischer, 'want success; they want a wife, a hotel room, an invitation, or perhaps a car!'"
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/der-spiegel-discovers-the-truth-from-science/

The History of Important Scientific Discoveries Initially Rejected and Ridiculed.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-history-of-scientific-discoveries.html
 
Last edited:
#7
I've read several. I guess I haven't seen any counter claims from the scientific community as to whether this is alarming to them or not. Seems to me that a serious scientist would take this reported phenomena, dare I say, seriously.
There are many scientific articles on the issue. Several which have been posted. And remember this has come to light by scientists. I'm not sure why you think scientists aren't taking it seriously. What is your criteria?
 
#8
There are many scientific articles on the issue. Several which have been posted. And remember this has come to light by scientists. I'm not sure why you think scientists aren't taking it seriously. What is your criteria?
Nature is about as high impact as it gets. The notion that this is being swept under the rug is just point-scoring posturing from the usual suspects.

Some like to paint science as a religion. The latter would never critique itself in such a way.
 
#9
Nature is about as high impact as it gets. The notion that this is being swept under the rug is just point-scoring posturing from the usual suspects.

Some like to paint science as a religion. The latter would never critique itself in such a way.
And this is a critique that has been pretty steady within the scientific community over the last 20 yrs. people need to spend a bit more time on google scholar and less skimming the science journalists, who aim for sensationalism (like most journalists).
 
#10
Nature is about as high impact as it gets. The notion that this is being swept under the rug is just point-scoring posturing from the usual suspects.

Some like to paint science as a religion. The latter would never critique itself in such a way.
No they don't, Malf. Some portray "Materialism" as a religion...and for very good reasons. Science is just a method. And the second line of your post is not very well thought out either, check the latest news from the official, first representative of the flying spaghetti monster. The Pope. (tee hee feel free to put your hand over your mouth and snigger) BTW I'm not religious but/and Pope John the 23rd did exactly that (critique his religion)
 
Last edited:
#11
Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

" According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments.

"What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what's actually happened,"
Here is a huge mine of information about specific areas of dubious science:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/critiques-of-science-as-currently-praticed.2959/

David
 
#12
And this is a critique that has been pretty steady within the scientific community over the last 20 yrs. people need to spend a bit more time on google scholar and less skimming the science journalists, who aim for sensationalism (like most journalists).
Part of the problem is that people in research are under enormous pressure to find something exciting to publish.

There has to be a sanction for printing junk - maybe 3 strikes and you are out :)

David
 
#14
Why have you given Arouet a like ?
That was a good question - on re-reading what he said, I can see it is ambiguous! I thought he was saying that scientists should pay more attention to the awful reliability of science, and less to reading about new ideas - but I think you are right, he was talking about the plebs who write here!

Thanks for pointing that out!

David
 
#15
That was a good question - on re-reading what he said, I can see it is ambiguous! I thought he was saying that scientists should pay more attention to the awful reliability of science, and less to reading about new ideas - but I think you are right, he was talking about the plebs who write here!

Thanks for pointing that out!

David
No worries, cheers.
 
Last edited:
#16
And this is a critique that has been pretty steady within the scientific community over the last 20 yrs. people need to spend a bit more time on google scholar and less skimming the science journalists, who aim for sensationalism (like most journalists).
Really I think it is very superficial.

It isn't enough to wring their hands about how to do better. I think teams in each discipline should ask themselves (and publish the results!) just how many of their past results in recent decades might be simply wrong.

Science needs to strip back a lot of results. It should also compare itself with things it doesn't like such as ψ research. For example, it could compare a variety of results in psychology with Dean Radin's research - how do they match up in terms of methodology etc. My hunch is that the best ψ research would be far harder to fault than most other research (because it has had to stand up to withering criticism to get anything published.

We need a (paper) bloodbath in the sciences if they are ever going to regain respect.

David
 
#17
This article mentions studies of several similar drugs that were expected to help altzheimer's patients but which turned out to be ineffective:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/alzheimers-amyloid-hypothesis/517185/

With all the talk about unreproducible experiments it is interesting to learn that these experiments were not faked even though the scientists had a strong bias that the drugs should work because of their theoretical beliefs about the cause of altzheimer's disease.

This example of science working as it should might have something to do with FDA regulations on how trials have to be conducted in order to get new drugs approved by that agency. If that's right, maybe those or similar regulations are needed in other fields of science and should be made conditions for funding.
 
Last edited:
Top