Still
a problem: in 2012, Amgen scientists reported that only ~10% of
"landmark" cancer precilinical pubs are reproducible. Predicating
careers on sexiness of results and novelty, instead of reproducibility,
is toxic to science and therefore to everyone who needs results that
work. See also.
"For example, showing data from tumour models in which a drug is inactive, and may not completely fit an original hypothesis, is just as important as showing models in which the hypothesis was confirmed."
That this needs to be broadcast to the field means that the incentive structure is broken. If all your data do not support the story you want to tell, and not for trivial reasons like "my puppy made those aliquots," then these are particularly critical inconsistencies to report. Whether you want to publish in Nature or Cell is and should be irrelevant - the data do not fully support the hypothesis.
In the end, it behooves no one to publish in Nature and temporarily boost your career while dooming months of subsequent postdoc work-hours to rediscovering the irreproducibility of your Nature-approved hypothesis.
"For example, showing data from tumour models in which a drug is inactive, and may not completely fit an original hypothesis, is just as important as showing models in which the hypothesis was confirmed."
That this needs to be broadcast to the field means that the incentive structure is broken. If all your data do not support the story you want to tell, and not for trivial reasons like "my puppy made those aliquots," then these are particularly critical inconsistencies to report. Whether you want to publish in Nature or Cell is and should be irrelevant - the data do not fully support the hypothesis.
In the end, it behooves no one to publish in Nature and temporarily boost your career while dooming months of subsequent postdoc work-hours to rediscovering the irreproducibility of your Nature-approved hypothesis.
No comments:
Post a Comment