d***3
发帖数: 181 | 1 Just heard a lecture from Dr. Janet Woodcock, Director, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research. One thing she mentioned was interesting. It
sounded like that FDA was challenging NIH on the reliability of academic
research data. A huge amount of money was wasted because many researches on
drug development in industry were misled by unreliable data from academic
research groups. NIH fought back calling FDA's lack of scientific awareness.
I wonder who is going to win at the end at Congress, the money keeper.
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf | a*****g
发帖数: 543 | 2 it has been a widely accepted in industry that <30% academic research are
reproducible.
not surprising that FDA is taking a stand | a********h
发帖数: 245 | 3 not surprising.
People already working on it with special funding and publication.
https://www.scienceexchange.com/reproducibility | l****b
发帖数: 400 | 4 The other way to look at this is that the industry researchers are not
competent. Some experiments are indeed technically challenging so not many
people can successfully perform the experiments, especially when the authors
purposely don't mention detail procedures in the paper.
Having said that, when something as easy as throwing a reagent and measuring
cell cycle changes cannot be reproduced (this has happened quite a few
times), those studies become highly skeptical.
My ideal but unpractical way of solving this is, money should not be
involved in science, meaning that papers and funding are not related to the
researchers' income. That way science will be pure. | d***3
发帖数: 181 | 5 Maybe you are right. That's exactly what NIH said to FDA. However, if the
academic research can only enjoy itself and cannot be used to help people,
why should we fund it?
authors
measuring
the
【在 l****b 的大作中提到】
: The other way to look at this is that the industry researchers are not
: competent. Some experiments are indeed technically challenging so not many
: people can successfully perform the experiments, especially when the authors
: purposely don't mention detail procedures in the paper.
: Having said that, when something as easy as throwing a reagent and measuring
: cell cycle changes cannot be reproduced (this has happened quite a few
: times), those studies become highly skeptical.
: My ideal but unpractical way of solving this is, money should not be
: involved in science, meaning that papers and funding are not related to the
: researchers' income. That way science will be pure.
| l****b
发帖数: 400 | 6 when we observe and study galaxy, how much are we helping people? same thing
when we study the development of wings and eyes in flies, or life span in c
elegans, are we really putting our science into application? my answer is
that we don't know yet the potential of these studies. might be huge in one
day, or might be nothing. Either way is fine, as long as the results are
solid.
The key issue here is, whether academic science is manipulated (or using a
less aggression expression, cherry-picked) to fatten some
researchers' wallet? If so, then we are wasting money. If not, I can't
speak for everyone but at least I am OK with it.
【在 d***3 的大作中提到】
: Maybe you are right. That's exactly what NIH said to FDA. However, if the
: academic research can only enjoy itself and cannot be used to help people,
: why should we fund it?
:
: authors
: measuring
: the
| d***3
发帖数: 181 | 7 I don't want to start a fight because I basically agree with you. Regarding
the examples you listed, I do think they are helping people. Those are
different from publishing some results that no one else can reproduce. If
someone claims that he is the only person in the whole world who can produce
that result, then he is not helping people. One thing is clear. Any result
published by industry has to be repeatable. Otherwise, the products of that
company won't have any credit.
thing
c
one
【在 l****b 的大作中提到】
: when we observe and study galaxy, how much are we helping people? same thing
: when we study the development of wings and eyes in flies, or life span in c
: elegans, are we really putting our science into application? my answer is
: that we don't know yet the potential of these studies. might be huge in one
: day, or might be nothing. Either way is fine, as long as the results are
: solid.
: The key issue here is, whether academic science is manipulated (or using a
: less aggression expression, cherry-picked) to fatten some
: researchers' wallet? If so, then we are wasting money. If not, I can't
: speak for everyone but at least I am OK with it.
| l****b
发帖数: 400 | 8 No offense taken. We are simply discussing. :-)
Regarding
produce
result
that
【在 d***3 的大作中提到】
: I don't want to start a fight because I basically agree with you. Regarding
: the examples you listed, I do think they are helping people. Those are
: different from publishing some results that no one else can reproduce. If
: someone claims that he is the only person in the whole world who can produce
: that result, then he is not helping people. One thing is clear. Any result
: published by industry has to be repeatable. Otherwise, the products of that
: company won't have any credit.
:
: thing
: c
| b******k
发帖数: 2321 | 9 我觉得直接造假（包括cherry picking），和故意把实验条件隐藏，和实验条件过于复
杂以至于没人能重复，其实后果都是一样的：那就是得出的结论没有用，因为别人一是
不知道真假，二是想知道真假也不知道怎么去验证。
所以如果工业界大范围的不能重复学术界的研究成果，不管是不是有什么客观原因，学
术界的这些成果不管对于推动知识进步还是解决国计民生都是没有用处的。
当然三种情形反映的人品问题的程度不一样。
thing
c
one
【在 l****b 的大作中提到】
: when we observe and study galaxy, how much are we helping people? same thing
: when we study the development of wings and eyes in flies, or life span in c
: elegans, are we really putting our science into application? my answer is
: that we don't know yet the potential of these studies. might be huge in one
: day, or might be nothing. Either way is fine, as long as the results are
: solid.
: The key issue here is, whether academic science is manipulated (or using a
: less aggression expression, cherry-picked) to fatten some
: researchers' wallet? If so, then we are wasting money. If not, I can't
: speak for everyone but at least I am OK with it.
| s**********e
发帖数: 2888 | 10 造假的都应该tjjtds。
看过一个国内的非常大医院的头头发的文章，连cancer cell proliferation (MTT
assay) 的数据我都没有办法重复，给他写信，没有回音；给他的美国薄厚老板写信，
他的美国薄厚老板给他写信，还是没有回音。这种人就是垃圾。 | | | y*****3
发帖数: 961 | 11 科研市场化的必经之路吧。只能靠完善管理制度来慢慢改进。 | p****s
发帖数: 3153 | 12 今天听国内同学说的好玩的事情，国内某大城市研究所的研究，RT-PCR是用粉条做的..
【在 s**********e 的大作中提到】
: 造假的都应该tjjtds。
: 看过一个国内的非常大医院的头头发的文章，连cancer cell proliferation (MTT
: assay) 的数据我都没有办法重复，给他写信，没有回音；给他的美国薄厚老板写信，
: 他的美国薄厚老板给他写信，还是没有回音。这种人就是垃圾。
| a********h
发帖数: 245 | 13 Nature 也有行动了。。那句：“ and may consult with statisticians on certain
papers.”很耳熟啊。
One Step, One Checklist at a Time
April 26, 2013
Nature Publishing Group has announced a new initiative aimed at improving
the reproducibility of research published in articles appearing across its
spectrum of journals.
To help with the issue of reproducibility, the publishing company says in a
press release it has developed a checklist to help researchers report the
details of their methodologies. The checklist "focuses on a small number of
often-incompletely reported elements of experimental and analytical design
that are crucial to the interpretation of research results; it also
consolidates several existing policies about data deposition and
presentation," the statement adds.
Nature adds that it will also be changing some of its in-house practices,
eliminating length restrictions on methods sections, and may consult with
statisticians on certain papers.
It notes in an editorial, though, that this is but a "small step" toward
solving the issue of reproducibility. "Tackling these issues is a long-term
endeavour that will require the commitment of funders, institutions,
researchers and publishers. …. We urge others to take note of these and of
our initiatives, and do whatever they can to improve research
reproducibility," the editorial adds. | r*****t
发帖数: 4793 | 14 没看明白
什么叫粉条做的RT-PCR?
..
【在 p****s 的大作中提到】
: 今天听国内同学说的好玩的事情，国内某大城市研究所的研究，RT-PCR是用粉条做的..
| f**********e
发帖数: 1994 | 15 韩国造假王黄禹锡在被踢爆前讲的也是这样。这种细活只有我们韩国人能干。
科学要纯净，要和铜臭味划清界线？那绝大多数的科学家都得去喝西北风。
authors
measuring
the
【在 l****b 的大作中提到】
: The other way to look at this is that the industry researchers are not
: competent. Some experiments are indeed technically challenging so not many
: people can successfully perform the experiments, especially when the authors
: purposely don't mention detail procedures in the paper.
: Having said that, when something as easy as throwing a reagent and measuring
: cell cycle changes cannot be reproduced (this has happened quite a few
: times), those studies become highly skeptical.
: My ideal but unpractical way of solving this is, money should not be
: involved in science, meaning that papers and funding are not related to the
: researchers' income. That way science will be pure.
| l*********s
发帖数: 5409 | 16 probably he means to use 粉条 instead of agarose to run electrophoresis.
【在 r*****t 的大作中提到】
: 没看明白
: 什么叫粉条做的RT-PCR?
:
: ..
| l****b
发帖数: 400 | 17 就是要让绝大多数的科学家去喝西北风。可以提高基本工资，适当的奖励是可以的，但
是不能有grant抽头之说。grant可以让你有钱做实验，雇人，不是用来给PI买大房子的
。这样一高，以后搞科研的就只剩富二代，或是对science甘愿赴汤蹈火之人了，
science的结果也就可信的多。
【在 f**********e 的大作中提到】
: 韩国造假王黄禹锡在被踢爆前讲的也是这样。这种细活只有我们韩国人能干。
: 科学要纯净，要和铜臭味划清界线？那绝大多数的科学家都得去喝西北风。
:
: authors
: measuring
: the
|
|
