On June 9, 2023, the editorial staff Facta. news I received a message via WhatsApp asking for verificationpurpose Entitled “Science Makes Mea Culpa and Writes It in Nature. The Absurd Investigation: ‘70% of Studies Are Not Reproducible'” published by the radio station radio radio on June 7th. The article mentions one Stady From the British Scientific Journal natures, entitled “1,500 scientists who lift the lid on reproducibility” (in Italian, “1,500 scientists who open the lid on reproducibility”). As I mentioned radio radioMore than 70 percent of researchers will fail to reproduce experiments conducted by other scientists, and more than half will fail to reproduce their own experiments.
This is misleadingly presented content that conveys inaccurate news. The tone of the article is intended to belittle science and the scientific method.
We define first of all that Reproducibility It is an essential step in scientific method which is based on a series of stages. First of all, experts observe a phenomenon and then create a hypothesis which is investigated and measured. Once the data is obtained, the conclusion is formulated and reproducibility is performed, i.e. the so-called “litmus test” which takes place by replicating the observed phenomenon according to protocol specific to each phenomenon being investigated.
The protocol is a series of specific procedures to be followed step by step in which every detail of the experiment is described. If the data is of significant statistical value, the theory is confirmed at the study center. Also, as we have already explained in Facta. newsAn additional control commonly called , is applied to scientific studies Peer reviewAnd That is, peer review that ensures the accuracy and objectivity of scientific findings. However, there are studies Hardly reproduced Due to environmental or cultural differences in which the experiment was conducted.
We now turn to the topic of content in our analysis.
study you are referring to radio radio It was published in the scientific journal natures on May 25, 2016 and really highlights a major lack of reproducibility in science, with over 70 percent of researchers failing to replicate others’ experiments and more than half failing to reproduce their own. However, it is important to note that in the same article we read that less than 31 percent believe that non-reproducible results are probably incorrect, while the majority still trust the published scientific literature. This can be interpreted as a sign of confidence in the scientific method, in the scientific community and in the review process, the so-called Peer reviewrather than as a denial of the reproductive problem.
As far as the reproduction of the experiments of other scientists is concerned, in fact, it must first be considered that the exact reproduction of an experiment can be affected by many factors. The procedures must be subject to specific standards standard operating procedureswhich is a very detailed list of steps to follow and tools to use in the most accurate and organized way possible.
Different laboratory equipment may produce different resultsexperimental error, that is, the inaccuracy that accumulates as the experiment progresses. This depends on the different calibration of the devices, and secondly, on the inaccuracy of the operator.
Failure to reproduce an experiment does not necessarily mean that the original results are incorrect, but it can indicate that it is complication from scientific research. Moreover, it must be considered that the modulus and operators that repeat trials are different and that is Brings for different results. In principle, accredited laboratories that comply with the quality standards set forth in the legislation ISO 17025 They are more likely to reproduce results obtained by other laboratories.
Article written by naturesIt also details how cancer psychology and cancer biology have reported reproduction rates of 40 percent and 10 percent, respectively. However, these findings cannot be generalized to all scientific disciplines, contrary to what has been done radio radio In the article we analyze.
Finally, his study natures It is based on 1,576 researchers. While this may seem like a large number, it is important to note that the sample is not representative of the entire scientific community, but rather only a small part. Moreover, the online survey was conducted without any participant selection and this does not allow for truly representative results.
“Infuriatingly humble social media buff. Twitter advocate. Writer. Internet nerd.”