One of the great things about scientific knowledge is that it is subject to confirmation or refutation by subsequent research. Science can be confirmed by other laboratories repeating the same studies and finding the same results. However this rarely occurs in the actual course of normally conducted science. In the course of doing science most scientists choose not to simply try to simply replicate the previous study. Rather they consider the findings in the previous study develop the next hypothesis and do a study to extend the findings. Now this seems to be changing.
In 2011 authors from Target Research, a component of Bayer Healthcare, published correspondence in Nature reported that surveys of their internal scientists found “that only in ~20–25% of the projects were the relevant published data completely in line with our in-house findings”. This figure has been widely quoted in the literature but has been transformed into only 20-25% of these research findings were reproducible. There are many problems with this statement and this argument. First it is predicated on the presumption that an appropriate standard for reproducibility is data being entirely “in line” with the work done by internal scientists at Bayer Healthcare. Moreover the studies at Bayer Healthcare, unlike the studies they sought to replicate, were not submitted to the scrutiny of external peer review. There is every reason to consider the possibilities that the fault lies with the replicating studies at Bayer or possibly they did not exactly replicate the studies. We are left to simply accept the word of Bayer without the normal standard of quality that derives from peer review.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.