Most biomedical research cannot be replicated
New studies looking at the work of scientists in the biomedical field has found that their research is difficult if not impossible to replicate, partly because much of their raw data is never made available for other researchers to review.
But over the past several years, a growing contingent of scientists has begun to question the accepted veracity of published research—even after it’s cleared the hurdles of peer review and appears in widely respected journals. The problem is a pervasive inability to replicate a large proportion of the results across numerous disciplines.
In 2005, for instance, John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, used several simulations to show that scientific claims are more likely to be false than true. And this past summer Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, attempted to replicate the findings of 100 psychology studies and found that only 39 percent of the results held up under rigorous re-testing. “There are multiple lines of evidence, both theoretical and empirical, that have begun to bring the reproducibility of a substantial segment of scientific literature into question,” says Ioannidis. “We are getting millions of papers that go nowhere.”
There’s a lot more. Read it all. It appears that much if not all of biomedical research is suspect. Their conclusions might be correct, but their methods are questionable, at best.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
New studies looking at the work of scientists in the biomedical field has found that their research is difficult if not impossible to replicate, partly because much of their raw data is never made available for other researchers to review.
But over the past several years, a growing contingent of scientists has begun to question the accepted veracity of published research—even after it’s cleared the hurdles of peer review and appears in widely respected journals. The problem is a pervasive inability to replicate a large proportion of the results across numerous disciplines.
In 2005, for instance, John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, used several simulations to show that scientific claims are more likely to be false than true. And this past summer Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, attempted to replicate the findings of 100 psychology studies and found that only 39 percent of the results held up under rigorous re-testing. “There are multiple lines of evidence, both theoretical and empirical, that have begun to bring the reproducibility of a substantial segment of scientific literature into question,” says Ioannidis. “We are getting millions of papers that go nowhere.”
There’s a lot more. Read it all. It appears that much if not all of biomedical research is suspect. Their conclusions might be correct, but their methods are questionable, at best.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
No surprises here! I remember one chemistry proff indicating he tells his postgrad students not to believe until they can replicate. The bio-sciences and especially psychology is in worse shape.
The publish or perish theme leads to this state. Conferences are a way for researchers to meet others in the field face to face and cut deals to fast track reviews. The anthropogenic global warmists have shown how successful this can be. Research grants follow.
Basically, human nature or the human condition leads to this type of “Falsehood” in any field.
Phill O-
Good stuff.
My Daughter is in drug-discovery & screening (private industry), they have a whole department that does nothing but replicate target molecules. (They can’t just make-it-all-up.)
I’m in Human Services and you should see the psycho-babble that passes for “research.” You can literally say anything you want and few people will ever challenge you.
Personally, I have a strong (Skinnerian) Behavioral bent and spent a huge chunk of grad school replicating older animal studies and trying to overlay those onto human subjects. Our main goal was to functionally define ‘everything’ and avoid mentalistic causes, as much as is possible.
(Far too much of “Psych” in particular, is a jumble of explanatory-fictions and circular-reasoning.
Psychobabble
Alan Parsons Project
https://youtu.be/i7RbZNT5A2A
4:50
The book Rigor Mortis documents this very well along with lots of stories, many of the sources of error and what is being done (not much). It’s a great read. By an NPR reporter no less.
I was really amused when I was listening to Science Friday and they interviewed the author the same weekend the March for Science was happening. Once the host heard that most biomedical research is flawed, he dropped the author like hot rock.
I can understand the pressure to publish even though I am not in that type of field myself.
I have a friend who is a microbiologist. He worked for 4 years on a project that never worked out. Luckily he is not the type of person who has ever really felt the pressure to publish or parish as they say. He started in the field because it was fun and 30 years later is still in it for fun.
I believe its just as important to publish failures as it is to publish successes. Some people might not though and for personal reasons take it personally. Or they boast to colleagues and just can’t admit they failed or their ideas didn’t pan out.
pzatchok Absolutely!
The Wright Brothers had a problem when they discovered that the previously published data for wing lift and drag were unreliable.
They had built their second Kitty Hawk glider using that data, only to discover that their second glider flew worse than their first. Realizing that the other two experimenters did not have accurate data was quite a disappointment to them, and in addition to the time that they lost making a worse flyer due to the poor data, they had to build their own experimental apparatus and spend time getting accurate data in order to improve their designs.
Research that had been done before turned out to be unrepeatable by the Wright Brothers. In their case, they were able to find the right answers in order to make their famous advancement. But what happens when poor data and conclusions are not so easily recognized?