One overarching problem facing global scientific research communities today is that too many research projects produce results that don't seem to be reproducible, thereby failing a basic tenet of science. If someone publishes a study saying that alcoholic housecats grossly overestimate their leaping abilities compared to non-alcoholic cats, then one should be able to reproduce the same study and see the same antic results, right? The stakes are far higher, of course, if the results cover the efficacy of a new cancer drug or stem cell treatments, as they often do.

Get the full story

This story is free
for registered users

Registering provides access to this and other free content.

Register now.

Already have an account?
Login Now.

Related Posts

Over Again

Do It Again

And the Result Is…

Reproducibility Focus

In PNAS this week: spatiotemporal study of lncRNA expression, role of extrachromosomal, circular DNAs in yeast, and more.

A European team has launched a four-year study to develop a test to gauge cervical, ovarian, uterine, or aggressive breast cancer risk in women.

As interest in personalized medicine grows, government contractors are entering the field, the Washington Post reports.

In PLOS this week: Plasmodium knowlesi population genetics, oral microbiome of infants and children, and more.