News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo”. Parent comment

Re:Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editi... by thwd on Thursday July 06, 2017 @06:17AM (#14709272)
Just like peer review is a necessary step for a study to be taken seriously, replication studies should be regarded as the direct next step. There needs to be incentive to reproduce the experiment.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editi... by danieltillett on Thursday July 06, 2017 @06:27AM (#14709311)
Replication is far more important than peer review. I would rather a 1/10th the number of "advances" published if I could rely on the results to be true, and even more importantly, robust.

When I used to run a lab we used to only consider results that had been replicated in at least two unconnected labs. Everything else was just a waste of time (on average).

[ Parent | on HN ]