Brian Nosek

Little less than half of the findings successfully replicated.

Little less than half of the findings successfully replicated.

A year and a half ago, we published the results of the reproducibility project in cancer biology doing the same kind of process and found very similar results. Less than half of the findings in preclinical cancer research replicated successfully when we tried to do so.

A year and a half ago, we published the results of the reproducibility project in cancer biology doing the same kind of process and found very similar results. Less than half of the findings in preclinical cancer research replicated successfully when we tried to do so.

A year and a half ago, we published the results of the reproducibility project in cancer biology doing the same kind of process and found very similar results. Less than half of the findings in preclinical cancer research replicated successfully when we tried to do so.

That doesn't mean that the original finding is necessarily wrong. We could have screwed something up in the replication. Successfully replicating doesn't mean the interpretation is right. It could be that both the findings have a confound in them, but we just are able to repeat the confound.

That doesn't mean that the original finding is necessarily wrong. We could have screwed something up in the replication. Successfully replicating doesn't mean the interpretation is right. It could be that both the findings have a confound in them, but we just are able to repeat the confound.

That doesn't mean that the original finding is necessarily wrong. We could have screwed something up in the replication. Successfully replicating doesn't mean the interpretation is right. It could be that both the findings have a confound in them, but we just are able to repeat the confound.

Fraud is the ultimate corrosive element of the system of science because as much as transparency provides some replacement for trust – You can't be transparent about everything. So the ideal model in scholarship is that you can see how it is they generated their evidence, how they interpreted their evidence, what the evidence actually is, and then independent people can interrogate that.

Fraud is the ultimate corrosive element of the system of science because as much as transparency provides some replacement for trust – You can't be transparent about everything. So the ideal model in scholarship is that you can see how it is they generated their evidence, how they interpreted their evidence, what the evidence actually is, and then independent people can interrogate that.

Fraud is the ultimate corrosive element of the system of science because as much as transparency provides some replacement for trust – You can't be transparent about everything. So the ideal model in scholarship is that you can see how it is they generated their evidence, how they interpreted their evidence, what the evidence actually is, and then independent people can interrogate that.

And so to the extent that fraud intrudes and actually the evidence isn't It isn't actual evidence. Then the whole edifice of that scholarly debate and tangling with ideas falls apart because you're actually tangling with ideas that aren't based on anything. How familiar are you with the Joachim Bolt situation? I'm not recalling that name, but I may know the case if you describe it.

And so to the extent that fraud intrudes and actually the evidence isn't It isn't actual evidence. Then the whole edifice of that scholarly debate and tangling with ideas falls apart because you're actually tangling with ideas that aren't based on anything. How familiar are you with the Joachim Bolt situation? I'm not recalling that name, but I may know the case if you describe it.

And so to the extent that fraud intrudes and actually the evidence isn't It isn't actual evidence. Then the whole edifice of that scholarly debate and tangling with ideas falls apart because you're actually tangling with ideas that aren't based on anything. How familiar are you with the Joachim Bolt situation? I'm not recalling that name, but I may know the case if you describe it.

We can't say with any confidence where it's most prominent. We can only say that the incentives for doing it are everywhere. And some of them gain more attention because, for example, Francesca's findings are interesting. They're interesting to everyone. So of course, they're going to get some attention to that. Whereas the anesthesiologist's findings are not interesting. They put people to sleep.

We can't say with any confidence where it's most prominent. We can only say that the incentives for doing it are everywhere. And some of them gain more attention because, for example, Francesca's findings are interesting. They're interesting to everyone. So of course, they're going to get some attention to that. Whereas the anesthesiologist's findings are not interesting. They put people to sleep.

We can't say with any confidence where it's most prominent. We can only say that the incentives for doing it are everywhere. And some of them gain more attention because, for example, Francesca's findings are interesting. They're interesting to everyone. So of course, they're going to get some attention to that. Whereas the anesthesiologist's findings are not interesting. They put people to sleep.

Until they kill you. Well, yeah, I guess they put you, and then they kill you.

Until they kill you. Well, yeah, I guess they put you, and then they kill you.

Until they kill you. Well, yeah, I guess they put you, and then they kill you.