Most Scientists 'Can't Replicate Studies By Their Peers' (bbc.com) 331
Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests. From a report: This is frustrating clinicians and drug developers who want solid foundations of pre-clinical research to build upon. From his lab at the University of Virginia's Centre for Open Science, immunologist Dr Tim Errington runs The Reproducibility Project, which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies. "The idea here is to take a bunch of experiments and to try and do the exact same thing to see if we can get the same results." You could be forgiven for thinking that should be easy. Experiments are supposed to be replicable. The authors should have done it themselves before publication, and all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions. Sadly nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth.
Fake science/sloppy science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score:4, Informative)
If you can't reproduce it, it's either fake or you were just being sloppy. Either way, it's no wonder ordinary civilians have doubts.
Or it took years to perfect the experiment technique. It took me 2.5 years to get my injury model and staining protocol optimized for my PhD research. A fair amount of success comes down to technique, not the written protocol.
Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score:5, Interesting)
Then why not describe the novel techniques you developed to complete the research in the paper? Any process that is claimed to require special abilities is actually one the needs training.
Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose that's a key element to the issue this article is discussing. If only the standard methods are in the publication and some novel augmentation of a process is necessary to produce those results, there is missing data and it could not be reproduced. Too many people are anxious to publish simply because it is part of their job to do so, but if some novel component is being persued through patent or other non-disclosed intellectual property, the publication should probably be either post-poned or not submitted. It's an odd catch 22 for folks in this area of research. I tend to agree that publishing something incomplete, however, simply extends ignorance rather than contributing to the education of your peers.
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't described a technique so that "someone skilled in the arts" can understand it, your patent protection maybe voided.
Re: (Score:3)
Because no one cares. The funding model for science in the US encourages each lab to find a "niche," an approach or an experimental model unique to that lab, defended by a barrier of custom-fabricated apparatus or years-long technique development. No other lab can afford the loss of productivity associated with that kind of investment, to say nothing of the direct expense.
In my US-based institution - and, indeed, my field - this is not true. Labs do specialize, but there is no equipment so specialized that nobody else can do it, and the various government funding sources mandate that we share our models with other labs who are interested.
Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to disagree. To me, "a fair amount of success comes down to technique, not the written protocol" means you're not documenting your protocol adequately.
It would certainly be fair to say that some manual actions could take a lot of practice before the experimenter would likely be skilled enough to perform them, but there shouldn't be anything missing from the protocol documentation that someone attempting to reproduce the results would have to learn from scratch.
Excepting well-established standard practices of the field, of course. You don't have to teach from kindergarten up to post-grad.
I'm no bio researcher, but I am an IT guy and we could fill a library with books on substandard documentation making it difficult for others to follow in our footsteps.
Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Controlling Biology is the Problem (Score:2)
"You didn't use the right technique" is the first excuse used by researchers when their results don't hold up.
In Bio science this reproducibility problem is, at heart, a problem with having an experimental system that is under control, well defined and "stable".
There are plenty of very precise measurements made that are not accurate because there is something about the experiment that is not under control.
In biology, even if you do your best to account for statistical variation, it can often be the case tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Reading is often more information-dense - and I definitely don't wa
Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score:4, Funny)
we could fill a library with books on substandard documentation
There is some irony in there somewhere...
Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's not a standard protocol, why isn't it documented?
Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What a fucking GEM!!!! You had me at:
Abstract: The exponential dependence of resistivity on temperature in germanium is found to be a great big lie. My careful theoretical modeling and painstaking experimentation reveal 1) that my equipment is crap, as are all the available texts on the subject and 2) that this whole exercise was a complete waste of my time.
And kept delivering right through to the end! Thank you sir!
Also:
The diagram on the right side labeled: Fig. 1: Check this shit out.
Awesome!!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can't reproduce it, it's either fake or you were just being sloppy. Either way, it's no wonder ordinary civilians have doubts.
Or perhaps this is the reason why you need to build a consensus among many scientists with similar results before you put much validity in any cutting edge research. All research is going to include assumptions, specialized techniques, biases, random variability of data, and many other factors which can reduce the validity of its conclusions.
Your comment reeks of a double standard where if scientists cannot come to a consensus they are being fake or sloppy, but if they point out an overwhelming consensus they are not being scientific because a consensus shouldn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
How many studies? If a published peer reviewed study states a 95% confidence in the results, but has a 60% chance of being wrong, on average, how many studies must be conducted before we have significant evidence? If we have no tools in which to measure the confidence of an individual study, how do you suggest we come up with the confidence in an aggregate of studies?
A Bogosort will eventually get to the right answer, because it has a way of measuring the correctness of an answer. But without any method of
Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score:5, Insightful)
Woah, I am confused by what you just wrote.
You seem to be saying that if a bunch of scientists agree that *this* (whatever *this* is) is the way it is, but none of the experiments that prove that *this* is the way it is are reproducible, then we should just go with the consensus?
Soooo, Galileo had some experiments he could back up, but the other scientists at the time had a consensus view of the cosmos. Their results were not reproducible, his were. You seem to be arguing for heliocentrism based on consensus.
Essentially, your introduction of the concept of consensus based on results with a total lack of any comments on how reproducible those results are leaves me wondering just what you think the scientific method is predicated on.
I don't care how "cutting edge" the research is. If it can be successfully reproduced and is based on sound principles I would consider it first before any "consensus" based on what a bunch of people think but can't back up with reproducible results.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, there is often consensus without duplication, or actual peer review. "If X says it is so, then I agree". The RIGHT answer is "I don't know, but X says it is so"
Consensus without duplication of experiment, or at LEAST running your OWN models on the other person's RAW data (if it is too hard to duplicate the data) is herd following
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly right. If it is not reproducible, it is not "Science," period.
If, as others have written, your experiment is so finely predicated on the experimental set-up (using certain equipment, preparing samples or data in a certain way, etc.) then you need to document that so specifically that anyone can repeat it. Why, you ask, with an dumbfounded and incredulous look on your face? Because you could be introducing very specific bias in the way you set up your experiment. If it only works when you do it *just like this,* maybe the reason is that the experimental result is a direct consequence of your set-up and not an actual measurement of naturally occurring phenomena. I like to call it "measuring your equipment."
If you cannot, through your extensive documentation, re-create the experiment in another lab with completely different humans what you have published is essentially science fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like the science fair project I judged one time. It concluded that Elmer's glue was the same strength as Gorilla glue (and a few other glues). Looking at the experiments I informed the middle school student that their study setup sadly had determined the tensile strength of popsicle sticks, not the shear strength of glue. You also have to make sure your experiment end point isn't influenced by limited equipment or testing setup.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score:5, Interesting)
. . . or that an unknown and unrecognized variable is at play.
Mind you, this goes back 40 years, but in my undergrad days, we were required to do a needle powder mount of a ground mineral, and use it in an x-ray diffractometry device. in order to identify the mineral by diffraction patterns.
The year my class did it, we were **all** off by about 5-6% from the reference shots, made years earlier (the sample sources remained the same). Turns out the manufacturer of the adhesive we used for the powder mounts (it was office-type rubber cement) had undergone a minor formula change, they had a new source of one ingredient, which had some metal dust contamination.
We had students doing the same experiment for 20 years previously, used identical techniques, and we STILL got different results. And we wouldn't have figured it out, if one of the TAs recalled that she had to get a new jar of rubber cement, the old one had solidified. . . . and it still took comparative chemical analyses of two different needle mounts of the same sample, but different years, to identify the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Hush. The most important part of 'Science' these days is that you have a consensus.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but I expect that the results I obtain are reasonably within the statistical bounds of the original hypotheses, analyses, and conclusions. What use is the original science if I can't even replicate the original experiment within those statistical bounds? Is it even fair to
Mix of patent theory and total fiction (Score:2, Interesting)
As per the subject, this comes from the collision of two things that are completely counter to the process of science.
1) Patent theory. Since many more nations have access to patents than actually respect patents, it is self-destructive to put enough detail in a patent to actually build what the patent is for. For research papers, this has the benefit of being informed of any attempts to replicate the study, because the other labs will call in and ask questions to find out what was left out. This lets th
Bad "instructions" or bad (bought?) science (Score:2)
From the article, it seems like people are trying to write things in a way to make them prettier... and less accurate. Quote: "The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results. "
This is slightly on topic... take the wording from wikipedia that seems to be designed to appeal to the masses and probably has misinformation (looks like big pharmacy got their hands in
Reproducibility is hard. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the experimental protocols listed in a paper, it is not unusual to have a method's section that is more or less an executive summary rather than a very detailed account of the underlying protocol. This is for two reasons: to great a level of detail leads to a methods section as big as the publication that the paper appears in, and second because many protocols more or less boil down to using a particular series kit or out-sourced lab service. Most journals require data supplements where an author must share their datasets in electronic form as an online addendum to the publication. I would support a similar requirement for a long-form protocol for reproduction of the study.
That said, some protocols necessarily take a lot of money, special equipment, a carefully selected population of volunteers, and time. Reproducing some studies can be outright impractical.
In computational biology and other computational extensions of the physical science, the reproducibility basically comes in the form of requirements to provide the software and raw data for a study. It's easy for the individual that compiles this information to verify that they get the same result as the one they report in the article. The concern there boils down to the provenance of the source data, which may be from registries, public data sets, or some combination of public and private data.
Re:Reproducibility is hard. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are we still using printed journals?
Why is the amount of space a report takes up still an issue?
Details are important. If you want a short version, then make a summary, but don't cut out the detail available to do that.
In terms of ascii/unicode text, we're not going to run out of bytes to explain important scientific details.
Heck - make videos of the processes, mention part numbers, and even show mistakes that you encountered along the way in your notes! Video hosting is free, and shouldn't be going away anytime soon. Making a process replication video should be a normal thing.
If you're spending so much time anyway, so much of your life in these studies, what's the value in holding back important information?
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Authors do not do so.
Yeah we do.
But those bits aren't reviewed.
Re:Reproducibility is hard. (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of reproduction is to guard against statistical accidents, bad assumptions, and fraud, and running the same software over the same data doesn't do that. Reproduction in the scientific sense means that someone who collects their own data and writes their own software using just the assumptions stated in your paper gets the same scientific result.
Reproducibility in computational and data intensive disciplines is actually a bigger problem than in experimental sciences, because it's so easy to share code and data; that means that lots of people run basically the same code over basically the same data and seem to be "reproducing" a result, when in fact, they are adding no new information.
can't make $$$ if your study fails (Score:3)
getting the results you need means you can push a drug through trials and make a lot of money
if you hurt or kill someone it won't happen for 20-30 years and by that time you will be retired and the person in charge at the time will be legally responsible while you chill in your nice house
Re: (Score:2)
Drug tests occur in an area where mistakes can ruin a company through lawsuits. I think the reliability there is far above average. That is, reliability where health hazards are concerned. I would not be so sure about effectivity testing but I still suspect that this more visible area of science is one where experimental rigor is way above average. I may be a sceptic about what average means.
Finding out whether your medicine will hurt someone in thirty years time can be pretty hard. Failing to do so doesn't
Re: (Score:3)
that's the point. look at vioxx. it was first developed in the 80's and the lawsuits didn't happen until 20 years later. the people who originally developed it and oversaw it being released to market were long gone by then. and during the whole lawsuit hype there were old scientists on TV who read the original research at the time and said it would most likely cause problems due to the way it worked
The rush to "publish or perish" (Score:2)
The authors should have done it themselves before publication
In the rush to "publish or perish," you don't have time to re-run your experiment.
A "solution" would be "split publication" - publish results after the first experiment but call it "unverified." Then when you or another researcher reproduces the experiment, publish again.
The first researcher would receive the primary "credit" but only if the results held up under scrutiny.
Over time, researchers who accumulated a lot of "un-verified" initial publications would see their reputations suffer.
Re:The rush to "publish or perish" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Science discourages reproducing (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientists are not rewarded for reproducing/debunking previous work. You can't easily get it published, because it is not regarded as new. Honestly, I think grad student projects should be almost entirely reproducing other results. It would insure that every important result is reproduced, and increase the emphasis of doing the science correctly rather than finding some novel result (which is usually a 2 sigma result which again can't be reproduced).
Re: (Score:2)
That's a really good point and I would have to agree. Letting grad students do research while they have no practical application of their yet inexperienced education is like letting a 10 year old try to drive a car just because he was able to read the manual. Giving them the task of reproducing experiments and prooving or disprooving their validity is an excellent way to get hands on experience without adding elements of risk to an already challenging field.
Re:Science discourages reproducing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not Science, Medicine (Score:5, Interesting)
This leads to a different approach using the tools of science. Medical researchers tend to focus far more on correlation over causation because that is what is most important to this. Unfortunately this approach leaves them open to random statistical effects which require a very good understanding of statistics to avoid and even then it can still be very easy to fool yourself e.g. the Monty Hall effect [wikipedia.org].
So lets call this problem what it is: a problem with medical research.
Re: (Score:2)
Medical researchers tend to focus far more on correlation over causation because that is what is most important to this
No, they focus on correlation because causation is frequently so complex that it can not be deciphered with our current level of knowledge. It can often take decades after we find the correlation that we can nail down the causation.
NB: most medical scientists (Score:5, Insightful)
The human body is the most complex organism in the known universe so there's nothing to be sneezed at or be surprised by. For instance recent studies have shown that for a lot of people placebo works even when people have a perfect knowledge [harvard.edu] that they are given placebo.
As another confirmation, the brain has the ability to directly change/affect the chemical processes in the body as demonstrated by Wim Hof [wikipedia.org] who can manage his body's temperature at will.
Re: (Score:2)
> The human body is the most complex organism in the known universe ...
Found the anthropocentrist.
Re: (Score:2)
Complex doesn't mean perfect or without flaws. Also, you cannot imagine how many germs coexist with us and we depend our life on them.
Also I'm not a biologist however as far as I understand it's not viruses that kill us, it's our own failing biology due to our DNA: death is programmed deep in our DNA, or otherwise there wouldn't be evolution. I might be totally wrong of course - I'd like to hear what actual biologists would say.
Science Isn't Broken (It’s just a lot harder (Score:2)
For a different view:
Science Isn't Broken (It’s just a hell of a lot harder than we give it credit for.) [fivethirtyeight.com]
Financial motives... (Score:3)
If I were publishing a paper on something that could lead to a serious pile of greenbacks, you can be damn sure my paper is going to exclude some details that would prevent others from monetizing off of my work...
After all, science these days is not solely for the pursuit of truth and knowledge. Research is bought and paid for, and like any venture capital, the investments are expected to pay off.
Re:Financial motives... (Score:4, Interesting)
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite."
What is that supposed to mean? (Score:2)
Can two thirds of the results not be reproduced? That is a huge problem with our academic credibility and what we consider science.
Can two thirds of the scientists not reproduce results? That's a huge problem with our academic standards and what we consider scientists.
Have you read published papers? (Score:2)
Most published papers are so condensed with so many steps in the process brushed over it is not straight forward to actually recreate it. The devil is in the details is the apt description of the process of actually implementing something. Insignificant details which are not important in describing the concepts and results can be essential for implementation. Sometimes luck, skill and sometimes there is a bit of trial of and error which does not get described. Sure, there is an assumption of skill level b
The solution is simple. (Score:2)
If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Then if you succeed, try try again. Carry on until you have constructed a body of results you can evaluate as a whole.
There is a reproducibility problem for who have a model of the universe that works like this: If A is true, then investigation will uncover evidence supporting A, and no evidence supporting not-A. If this is your world view, then the instant you have any contradictory data you have a worldview crisis.
It is perfectly normal for science to yield c
Studies may not include all influential factors. (Score:2)
Science is hard (Score:2)
A lot of times stuff is not replicatable (suck it spellchecker, i just invented the word) because it's fucking difficult. I mean I have spent thousands of dollars and even worse wasted many hours in the lab on getting something I thought should be straightforward, obvious, and simple to work. Sometimes you want things to work so badly, you might even see things (usually fluorescence) where there is none. It's like how Percival Lowell saw canals on Mars. As a scientist you have to fight hard against your o
Except for climate science, that's settled (Score:2)
and doesn't need no stinking experiments.
My experience (Score:2)
Re:s/drug trials/climate change/g (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: s/drug trials/climate change/g (Score:5, Informative)
Many studies have been done on anthropic climate change, but almost no experiments.
Re: s/drug trials/climate change/g (Score:5, Informative)
Many studies have been done on anthropic climate change, but almost no experiments.
The infrared absorption of carbon dioxide is experimentally measured in the laboratory. And there is a vast amount of measured data on the earth's atmosphere and climate, from surface, atmospheric, and orbital probes, not to mention probes of other planets; and we acquire terabytes of additional data every year.
The basics of Earth's energy balance are well understood, and they are understood, in part, because of this vast amount of experimental and observational data.
Re: (Score:2)
What climate-related factors are *not* measured? Clouds? Water vapor? Convection?
Re: s/drug trials/climate change/g (Score:4, Insightful)
he infrared absorption of carbon dioxide is experimentally measured in the laboratory
No one rational doubts this. That has never been what the climate change debate was about. But the atmosphere is not a bottle of air, or even a bottle of air and water (any modern meteorological model treats modeling he ocean at least as importantly as modeling the air). The atmosphere+hydrosphere is a complex, evolving system with many feedback mechanisms, both positive and negative.
I mean, really, do you think a climate model is simply modeling a static stack of air with some CO2 in it? Really?
The question is: quantitatively, what rate of human CO2 emission with create what effects, in detail. This is not the sort of science that lends itself to reproducible experiments, but that's fine, neither does astronomy or cosmology. It is, like any science, required to make falsifiable quantitative predictions.
And, frankly, the best models aren't doing so well, giving about 2 sigmas of accuracy. If you generated hundreds of models at random, you'd expect a couple dozen to have 2 sigmas of accuracy. That doesn't mean the models are flawed in any fundamental way, but there's a big gap between "not fundamentally flawed" and "great, proven science".
Re: s/drug trials/climate change/g (Score:4, Insightful)
"Yes, but how FAST is it sinking?"
"We're not entirely sure, but we know it is because we keep drilling holes."
"Well, we better keep drilling until we know how fast, just to be safe."
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's the whole point of your debate. Sadly you are outshouted by the people who deny that its happening. I'm all for the debate you want to have.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It will be tough to make a switch now but doing so will make it better and in the long run less painful.
How much of a switch? What's the benefit of the switch? What's the cost of the switch? No matter how frantically you wave your hands, you're not providing numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, yer right, dumping gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere has absolutely no effect we could measure. Shame on us.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it has an effect, all of those CO2 starved plants on the planet are starting to flourish!
The grand experiment (Score:4, Informative)
Many studies have been done on anthropic climate change, but almost no experiments.
There's one rather large experiment going on right now. Unfortunately we're all inside the test tube. So far it's turning out more or less how we expected. [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That must be nice to know for people who live in sealed transparent tanks of air.
Questions require listening (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not heresy if the science is sound. Simply questioning isn't valid, though.
Questioning, of course, is always valid. But "questioning" is useless when the questioner has no interest in listening to anybody answering the question.
Far too much of the "questioning" about climate science is from people who have no interest in any of the science, the measurements, or the data, and won't bother to learn anything about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Re: (Score:3)
There have been a few questions I've never been able to answer:
What is the precision of an ocean going thermometer?
what was the precision of a 1900s era thermometer?
What was the average uncertainty of a 1900s thermometer and how does it compare with current technology, also what are the known biases in temperature measurement of the time?
It would seem to me that any comparison of pre-modern temperatures to
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Name one study offering a credible alternative explanation for observed phenomena.
Re: (Score:2)
Record high temps, record low temps. record rain, record drought.
In other words, the weather is getting more extreme and less predictable. Our only options are 1) accept it, and build bigger reservoirs, flood canals, and levees. 2) try to fight back. or 3) ignore it and hope it goes away.
Refusing to accept weather record data falls into the 3rd category, BTW
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Record high temps, record low temps. record rain, record drought.
That's actually what you'd expect with a chaotic system built of multiple random variables. It would be unnatural for weather to always be the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: s/drug trials/climate change/g (Score:4, Informative)
Record high temps, record low temps. record rain, record drought.
That's actually what you'd expect with a chaotic system built of multiple random variables. It would be unnatural for weather to always be the same.
Actually it's not. It's a simple fact that in a stable system, as time goes on, there are fewer and fewer "record" events because each new record needs to be more extreme than all previously recorded events. Over time, record-breaking events decline significantly. So, an increase in record events is, by itself, evidence that the system is undergoing change.
observed phenomena (Score:2)
Name one study offering a credible alternative explanation for observed phenomena.
What observed phenomena?
This, for a start: http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-co... [berkeleyearth.org] . On the subject of replication, note that this image graphs results from four different research groups.
Here is the fit of theory to experiment:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-co... [berkeleyearth.org]
Instrument calibration (Score:2)
Re: Instrument calibration (Score:2)
Re:s/drug trials/climate change/g (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of peer review is to identify incorrect theories and throw them out.
Not even that much, really. You can't generally detect an incorrect theory in a paper you're reviewing.
Basically peer review can only ensure that the authors have done their homework, are aware of all the other relevant literature, explain themselves clearly, thought of obvious problems and alternative explanations, and don't invoke any logical fallacies.
In practice a lot of it gets dedicated to a grad student who can't even do that much.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that peer review is a misnomer - if you can't replicate the experiment, you're not a peer.
Not saying that all peer reviewers should replicate the experiments before approving articles for publication, but I am saying that if they are truly incapable of replicating the experiment, then they have no place judging the fitness for publication.
This would leave the "top labs" in the world "peerless" - and they could be published in separate "peerless" sections of respected publications - get their studies
Re:s/drug trials/climate change/g (Score:4, Informative)
This of course presumes the experiment **can** be replicated.
As for "peerless", there have been researchers at top labs (Bell, for one) that have fabricated their research.
Re: (Score:2)
The suspicion is not as much as others can't replicate, but that the even original researchers can't replicate; and it's not the same as the old "don't get your glassware too clean" in organic chemistry either.
Re: (Score:3)
If they have trouble reproducing studies maybe they need to go back to science school. Or look up "science" on wikipedia and do more learning.
Ah, because there's no way in hell that the initial experiments could have been fabricated to favor certain outcomes, especially within the trillion-dollar Cancer Treatment Complex, right?
Yeah, you're right. Over 65% of trained researchers must be stupid or something...
Re: (Score:2)
Whose greed?
Foolish you. You assume greed == corporations.
Greed for fame?
Greed for advancement?
Greed for pushing a personal agenda?
Publish or Perish.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Greed? Whose greed? Foolish you. You assume greed == corporations. Greed for fame? Greed for advancement? Greed for pushing a personal agenda? Publish or Perish.
A landmark study can drive policy. It can shift entire ideologies. It can change a cultural mindset.
If you want answers to your questions, then I challenge you to dig into the five landmark cancer studies that they have found to be unrepeatable. I can think of a trillion reasons why studies might prove to be bullshit to benefit the Cancer Treatment Complex.
Do I need to research or even assume what would motivate Greed to twist facts and distort truth? No. All I have to do is look at history.
From TFA:
"Without efforts to reproduce the findings of others, we don't know if the facts out there actually represent what's happening in biology or not...It could be that we would be much further forward in terms of developing new cures and treatments."
Ah
Re: (Score:2)
Greed can also exist in individual scientists and bureaucrats and can be against the best interest of the corporation (or the funders of the project).
Cancer cures are a good thing.
Cancer cures requires work and investment capital.
Scientists need to be paid (along with everyone else including HR and people mopping the floors)
Investment capital needs to be repaid with dividends.
All the above are good good things.
Re: (Score:3)
I was just commenting on the premise that greed == always bad == corporations. Greed can also exist in individual scientists and bureaucrats and can be against the best interest of the corporation (or the funders of the project). Cancer cures are a good thing. Cancer cures requires work and investment capital. Scientists need to be paid (along with everyone else including HR and people mopping the floors) Investment capital needs to be repaid with dividends. All the above are good good things.
Common F. Sense agrees that all of the above are good things
The problem is Greed N. Corruption isn't really interested in curing jack shit anymore, and will always favor perpetual treatments to feed profits.
Treatments create unending profits.
Treatments create unending jobs.
Cures ultimately destroy jobs and severely limit perpetual revenue and profits, which does not pay the dividends that Wall Street now demands.
Those running counter to the best interests of those in Control will ultimately be removed fro
Re: (Score:2)
$$$
lots and lots of money since insurance will pay for virtually everything these days and so many more people have it now
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, if I found out that teh guvmnt was putting significant quantities of sugar in my water I'd be a little upset too. It would certainly make washing up more challenging.