+ - Majority of landmark cancer studies cannot be replicated-> 3
Submitted
by
Beeftopia
Beeftopia writes ""NEW YORK (Reuters) — A former researcher at Amgen Inc has found that many basic studies on cancer — a high proportion of them from university labs — are unreliable, with grim consequences for producing new medicines in the future.
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.
[...] 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.""
Link to Original Source
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.
[...] 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.""
Link to Original Source
Or maybe it's Henrietta Lacks (Score:2)
I remember reading a while back that "Henrietta Lacks" had an unusually virulent strain of cancer, and there were widespread problems with her cells contaminating other samples.
Perhaps an urban legend, but it sounds good, and still produces hits on google.
Want to subscribe your news letter (Score:1)