Jay Bhattacharya

Actually, can I say it another way?

It's a second scientific revolution.

The first scientific revolution was authority deciding what's true or false.

And the revolution was a guy with a telescope gets to decide what's true or false in physical reality.

Replication, then, is essentially democratization of who gets to decide what's true and false in science.

The replicator, then, is not just some unsexy thing.

It's like fundamental for the scientific community deciding what's true or false.

That's the second scientific revolution.

Yes.

We're going to do that.

And people ask me what percentage, I don't know.

It'll depend on the field, it'll depend on a whole host of things, and I'm gonna let the scientific community weigh in on that.

Then second, you have a journal where you can actually publish your replication work.

Also your negative findings, like I have a drawer full of hypotheses that failed.

You should be able to publish them, put them in a journal somewhere, right?

So, again, that's something NIH can do.

Journal of failed results.

I'm really bad at marketing, Ross.

And then third, you make a set of metrics.

that track good scientific behavior, right?