http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483509a.html
Science: Branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged. So says the dictionary. But, as most scientists appreciate, the fruits of what is called science are occasionally anything but. Most of the time, when attention focuses on divergence from this gold (and linguistic) standard of science, it is fraud and fabrication — the facts and truth — that are in the spotlight. These remain important problems, but this week Nature highlights another, more endemic, failure — the increasing number of cases in which, although the facts and truth have been established, scientists fail to make sure that they are systematically arranged. Put simply, there are too many careless mistakes creeping into scientific papers — in our pages and elsewhere.
A Comment article on page 531 exposes one possible impact of such carelessness. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis analyse the low number of cancer-research studies that have been converted into clinical success, and conclude that a major factor is the overall poor quality of published preclinical data. A warning sign, they say, should be the “shocking” number of research papers in the field for which the main findings could not be reproduced. To be clear, this is not fraud — and there can be legitimate technical reasons why basic research findings do not stand up in clinical work. But the overall impression the article leaves is of insufficient thoroughness in the way that too many researchers present their data.
The finding resonates with a growing sense of unease among specialist editors on this journal, and not just in the field of oncology. Across the life sciences, handling corrections that have arisen from avoidable errors in manuscripts has become an uncomfortable part of the publishing process.
During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 "landmark" publications -- papers in top journals, from reputable labs -- for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development.
Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated. He described his findings in a commentary piece published on Wednesday in the journal Nature. "It was shocking," said Begley, now senior vice president of privately held biotechnology company TetraLogic, which develops cancer drugs. "These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development. But if you're going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it's true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can't take anything at face value."
The failure to win "the war on cancer" has been blamed on many factors, from the use of mouse models that are irrelevant to human cancers to risk-averse funding agencies. But recently a new culprit has emerged: too many basic scientific discoveries, done in animals or cells growing in lab dishes and meant to show the way to a new drug, are wrong.
Exciting results seem to come right around new funding cycles
THAT IS WHY GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF ANYTHING IS STUPID
I am trying to wrap my head around why NASA was a success on the moon program, if what i just said is true, and i think I have it- COMPETITION
We had a motivated staff competing against the Russians.
One of the rare occurances where government had positive motivating factors.
Mostly they sit around shuffling papers (and I have worked for enough of them to know)
The way I perceive it, scientists do research on basic questions and then make deductions based on the results of the research. It’s those deductions, and not the results, that form the bulk of today’s “scientific opinion.” It may be the “opinion of a scientist” but it’s not science.
EXCERPT:
“If you can write it up and get it published you’re not even thinking of reproducibility,” said Ken Kaitin, director of the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development.”You make an observation and move on. There is no incentive to find out it was wrong.”
Now where have we heard this before? “The science is settled!” Al Gore would be proud.
What’s interesting is how both conservatives and liberals are only selectively open to the possibility of widespread misinformation. Conservatives understand that global warming is a farce, but many have unshakable faith in allopathic medicine. Liberals distrust allopathic medicine but believe 100% in global warming.
You’d think that evidence of one would beget questions of the other.
The scientific method has been replaced by science by consensus. After all with moral relativism there is no such thing as objective truth.