From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A6C421F2FE for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obcjt1 with SMTP id jt1so88654700obc.2 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:59:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=84Y2UbieytqzgQaOGvXlqK0rfxcCgGSqfdshZfLt5qA=; b=D/+ZkqTc8/p7H4Ve+ZYvhCTAnO4/IK6a1dIUy7VsdtCHdANDdrgH0fRrK8D0B4zNsF 145noQWt8mMhUg99aGvplFKTglv5xjw57cY/jT2rFmT2Pg1SMnY8NZkBwwTrHjZNry4d 0TW1hDUvDenDZDEE2os34bs5EWorwfIDczlv9c3t2af8Gu4CMZJL7/qAe4jhbL0GZLRx NmRHFSkJGoYOYlQrhlLyTXHByAAqKRwQdkF4XzKO0yNc/knFEvQVlCIFwgttxx6U6f1g s8BBVw6bsoMszO813RhhHJ6R7QLFtqicoUkSZspXp699fJJRv9B3tlBFaRELzKhsuwNc cijA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.123.83 with SMTP id ly19mr27219752oeb.8.1427047164414; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.51.66 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:59:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:59:24 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d54985011b30511e44f36 Subject: [Bloat] Fwd: [IP] In science, irreproducible research is a quiet crisis X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 17:59:53 -0000 --047d7b5d54985011b30511e44f36 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable amen. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dave Farber via ip Date: Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 9:45 AM Subject: [IP] In science, irreproducible research is a quiet crisis To: ip ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hendricks Dewayne Date: Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:29 PM Subject: [Dewayne-Net] In science, irreproducible research is a quiet crisi= s To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net [Note: This item comes from friend Bob Frankston. Bob's comment:'Why risk jeopardizing your funding by trying to reproduce results and showing that the money wasn=E2=80=99t well spent?'. DLH] In science, irreproducible research is a quiet crisis By Carolyn Johnson Mar 19 2015 < http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/03/19/science-irreproducible-research= -quiet-crisis/xunxnfuzwdwYSpVjkx2iQN/story.html > Even when no one=E2=80=99s done anything obviously wrong, scientific experi= ments sometimes yield results that turn out to be incorrect. When Doug Melton=E2= =80=99s team at Harvard University discovered betatrophin, a hormone that could trigger the pancreas to make beta cells lost in diabetes, their 2013 paper was touted as a breakthrough. But when they redid the experiment and increased the number of animals, the original result didn=E2=80=99t quite h= old up. The hormone=E2=80=99s effect was far weaker than first reported. As so often happens, the biology at work was more complex than it originally seemed. Melton is continuing a long list of experiments to understand how betatrophin works. He vows to publish the results, whether they point to a diabetes therapy or not. To many in the scientific community, this was an example of how science self-corrects. It was Melton=E2=80=99s lab, along with an outside group, th= at identified the problems in the earlier work. Yet the case also exemplifies a broader problem in the research world. The rush to celebrate =E2=80=9Ceur= eka=E2=80=9D moments often overshadows a rather mundane activity on which science depends: repetition. Any finding needs to be =E2=80=9Creproducible=E2=80=9D= =E2=80=94 confirmed in other labs =E2=80=94 if it is to matter. But talk to a scientist long enough, and you=E2=80=99ll probably hear a sto= ry like this: An intriguing new discovery was reported in a research journal. Maybe it was a biologist describing a new Achilles=E2=80=99 heel in cancer cells,= a psychologist=E2=80=99s profound insight into human behavior, or an astronom= er=E2=80=99s finding about the first moments of the universe. The scientist read about the finding and tried to confirm it in her own lab, but the experiment just didn=E2=80=99t come out the same. Evidence of a quiet crisis in science is mounting. A growing chorus of researchers worry that far too many findings in the top research journals can=E2=80=99t be replicated. =E2=80=9CThere=E2=80=99s a whole groundswell o= f awareness that a lot of biomedical research is not as strongly predictive as you think it would be,=E2=80=9D said Dr. Kevin Staley, an epilepsy researcher at Massachusetts= General Hospital. =E2=80=9CPeople eventually become aware because there=E2=80=99s a= wake of silence after a false positive result,=E2=80=9D he added. The same is true in every= field of science, from neuroscience to stem cells. Ideally, science builds on and corrects itself. In practice, the incentives facing scientists can hamper the process. It=E2=80=99s more exciting and advantageous to publish a new therapeutic approach for a disease than to revisit a past discovery. Yet unless researchers point out the limitations of one another=E2=80=99s work, the scientific literature can end up clutter= ed with results that are partially or, in some cases, not at all true. Recently, researchers and the US government alike have sought to assess how much research is irreproducible =E2=80=94 and why =E2=80=94 and are looking= for systematic ways to retest experiments that make headlines but yield no further progress. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb --047d7b5d54985011b30511e44f36 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
amen.

---------- Forwar= ded message ----------
From: Dave Farber v= ia ip <ip@listbo= x.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 9:45 AM
Subject: [IP]= In science, irreproducible research is a quiet crisis
To: ip <ip@listbox.com>



---------- Forwarded message ----------<= br>From: Hendricks Dewayne <dewayne@= warpspeed.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:29 PM
Subj= ect: [Dewayne-Net] In science, irreproducible research is a quiet crisisTo: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net@warpspeed.com>

[Note:=C2=A0 This item comes from friend Bob Frankston.=C2=A0 Bob's c= omment:'Why risk jeopardizing your funding by trying to reproduce resul= ts and showing that the money wasn=E2=80=99t well spent?'.=C2=A0 DLH]
In science, irreproducible research is a quiet crisis
By Carolyn Johnson
Mar 19 2015
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/03/19/science-irreproducible-r= esearch-quiet-crisis/xunxnfuzwdwYSpVjkx2iQN/story.html>

Even when no one=E2=80=99s done anything obviously wrong, scientific experi= ments sometimes yield results that turn out to be incorrect. When Doug Melt= on=E2=80=99s team at Harvard University discovered betatrophin, a hormone t= hat could trigger the pancreas to make beta cells lost in diabetes, their 2= 013 paper was touted as a breakthrough. But when they redid the experiment = and increased the number of animals, the original result didn=E2=80=99t qui= te hold up. The hormone=E2=80=99s effect was far weaker than first reported= .

As so often happens, the biology at work was more complex than it originall= y seemed. Melton is continuing a long list of experiments to understand how= betatrophin works. He vows to publish the results, whether they point to a= diabetes therapy or not.

To many in the scientific community, this was an example of how science sel= f-corrects. It was Melton=E2=80=99s lab, along with an outside group, that = identified the problems in the earlier work. Yet the case also exemplifies = a broader problem in the research world. The rush to celebrate =E2=80=9Ceur= eka=E2=80=9D moments often overshadows a rather mundane activity on which s= cience depends: repetition. Any finding needs to be =E2=80=9Creproducible= =E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 confirmed in other labs =E2=80=94 if it is to matter.
But talk to a scientist long enough, and you=E2=80=99ll probably hear a sto= ry like this: An intriguing new discovery was reported in a research journa= l. Maybe it was a biologist describing a new Achilles=E2=80=99 heel in canc= er cells, a psychologist=E2=80=99s profound insight into human behavior, or= an astronomer=E2=80=99s finding about the first moments of the universe. T= he scientist read about the finding and tried to confirm it in her own lab,= but the experiment just didn=E2=80=99t come out the same.

Evidence of a quiet crisis in science is mounting. A growing chorus of rese= archers worry that far too many findings in the top research journals can= =E2=80=99t be replicated. =E2=80=9CThere=E2=80=99s a whole groundswell of a= wareness that a lot of biomedical research is not as strongly predictive as= you think it would be,=E2=80=9D said Dr. Kevin Staley, an epilepsy researc= her at Massachusetts General Hospital. =E2=80=9CPeople eventually become aw= are because there=E2=80=99s a wake of silence after a false positive result= ,=E2=80=9D he added. The same is true in every field of science, from neuro= science to stem cells.


Ideally, science builds on and corrects itself. In practice, the incentives= facing scientists can hamper the process. It=E2=80=99s more exciting and a= dvantageous to publish a new therapeutic approach for a disease than to rev= isit a past discovery. Yet unless researchers point out the limitations of = one another=E2=80=99s work, the scientific literature can end up cluttered = with results that are partially or, in some cases, not at all true.

Recently, researchers and the US government alike have sought to assess how= much research is irreproducible =E2=80=94 and why =E2=80=94 and are lookin= g for systematic ways to retest experiments that make headlines but yield n= o further progress.

[snip]

Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/>



=20 =20
Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Uns= ubscribe Now



--
Dave T=C3=A4ht
Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable= again!

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175= 615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb
--047d7b5d54985011b30511e44f36--