←back to thread

Reproducibility project fails to validate dozens of biomedical studies

(www.nature.com)
247 points rntn | 1 comments | 25 Apr 25 16:14 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
N_A_T_E ◴[25 Apr 25 16:58 UTC] No.43795965[source]▶
Is there any path forward to fixing the current reproducibility crisis in science? Individuals can do better, but that won't solve a problem at this scale. Could we make systemic changes to how papers are validated and approved for publication in major journals?
replies(12): >>43796160 #>>43796211 #>>43796313 #>>43796358 #>>43796415 #>>43796725 #>>43796906 #>>43796908 #>>43796955 #>>43797084 #>>43797605 #>>43797627 #
1970-01-01 ◴[25 Apr 25 18:35 UTC] No.43797084[source]▶
Yes, but nobody wants to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Once again, this is why defunding research has gained merit. If more than half of new research is fake, don't protest when plugs are being pulled; You're protesting empirical results.
replies(2): >>43797600 #>>43797868 #
1. refulgentis ◴[25 Apr 25 19:48 UTC] No.43797868[source]▶
> more than half of new research is fake

You committed the same sin you are attempting to condemn, while sophomorically claiming it is obvious this sin deserves an intellectual death penalty.

It made me smile. :) Being human is hard!

Now I'm curious, will you acknowledge the elephant in this room? It's hard to, I know, but I have a strong feeling you have a commitment to honesty even if it's hard to always enact all the time. (i.e. being a human is hard :) )