Scientific Research Might Not Work The Second Time Around or the First Time Either
December 20, 2021
Scientific research is one way humanity advances, but Science Alert brings into question if studies’ results can be replicated: “Strenuous 8-Year Effort To Replicate Key Cancer Research Finds An Unwelcome Surprise.” Common sense and the scientific process tells that if results cannot be replicated a second time, then they are not going to work. Cancer research is facings a stigma about scientific studies being replicated:
“The research looked at 193 different experiments found in 53 cancer-related papers published in high-profile journals between 2010 and 2012, and found that none of the experiments could be set up again using only the information published. After getting help from the original study authors, 50 experiments from 23 papers were reproduced.
That only a quarter of the experiments could be rerun at all is concerning – some of the original authors never responded to requests for help – but the results showed that these reproduced tests showed effect sizes that were often smaller than what the original studies yielded.”
The findings of the replicated studies discovered that the evidence was weaker than the original experiments. This does not mean that findings are false, but further testing is needed. Furthermore, time, money, and resources are wasted in clinical trials on patients where drugs do not affect diseases. Demands for results shape cancer biology and other scientific research.
These mounting pressures hinder scientific research and delay eventual cancer cures. There is a saying, “Art for art’s sake,” so why cannot there not be “Research for research’s sake” in order to advance science? Plus one can make up data, fiddle the results, or contact colleagues for some STM SEO goodness.
Whitney Grace, December 20, 2021
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
