Just 11% of 53 cancer research papers were reproducible

Re:Just 11% of 53 cancer research papers were reproducible by api on Thursday May 09, 2013 @08:26AM (#5680000)

After decades of publish-or-perish sweatshop science I'm sure the great shining archive of scientific truth is sort of like an inbox with no spam filter.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Just 11% of 53 cancer research papers were reproducible by evoloution on Thursday May 09, 2013 @08:57AM (#5680151)

Such a powerful sentence.

Lately science looks like olympic games without anti-doping control...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Just 11% of 53 cancer research papers were reproducible by api on Thursday May 09, 2013 @01:16PM (#5681639)

I'm becoming pretty convinced that the human future depends on the disruption and obsolescence of bureaucracies.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Just 11% of 53 cancer research papers were reproducible by spikels on Thursday May 09, 2013 @02:18PM (#5682069)

I think you are on to something. When science became so big that it first needed then eventually was run by "managers" I bet it lost much of its effectiveness. But how do we change this? For starters there is a lot of money involved for the institutions conducting this (apparently shoddy) research.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Just 11% of 53 cancer research papers were reproducible by kanzure on Thursday May 09, 2013 @02:25PM (#5682118)

> When science became so big that it first needed then eventually was run by "managers" I bet it lost much of its effectiveness.

You can just do projects on your own, you know. There's nothing about science that absolutely requires an institution.

http://groups.google.com/group/diybio

[ Parent | on HN ]