Re:More than half of high-impact cancer lab studies could no...
by tremon on Friday December 10, 2021 @05:59AM
(#29508529)
it would also indicate that a technique is dodgy, or that a research group or scientist is unreliable.
Not necessarily: it could also mean that we don't properly understand the process, and therefore essential steps/prerequisites in the experiment are left undocumented. That type of error is more fundamental than merely the technique or the researcher.
I share your concern. The operative word here is “should”. I. Practice replication studies have an opportunity cost because they won’t end up in a prestigious journal, they are harder to use in grant applications, and the time and resources could be spent on studies that would be more useful in these ways.
> And failure to replicate it, time after time, should be a cause of concern, shouldn't it?
It would be, and it would also indicate that a technique is dodgy, or that a research group or scientist is unreliable.