Majority of Landmark Cancer Studies Cannot Be Replicated

New submitter Beeftopia writes with perhaps distressing news about cancer research. From the article: "During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 'landmark' publications — papers in top journals, from reputable labs — for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development. Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated. He described his findings in a commentary piece published on Wednesday in the journal Nature (paywalled) . ... But they and others fear the phenomenon is the product of a skewed system of incentives that has academics cutting corners to further their careers." As is the fashion at Nature, you can only read the actual article if you are a subscriber or want to fork over $32. Anyone with access care to provide more insight? Update: 04/06 14:00 GMT by U L : Naffer pointed us toward informative commentary in Pipeline. Thanks!

Re:Grants-whores and publicists in academia?!?!?

[crazyjj]

premeds

I'll thank you not to use that kind of language on a family forum, sir!

Re:No Surprise Here

[smg5266]

Most people pursue careers in atmospheric science for the dollars

As I say to the PhD students in my lab

[golden age villain]

Let's publish it quickly, then get a tenured job and change topic before others find out it's all wrong!