Who’s to Blame for the Reproducibility Crisis?
The lack of reproducibility in science has reached epidemic proportions. How did it come to this? And how can we regain our credibility?
Ira Krull |
Earlier this year, in this very magazine (1), I described the apparent lack of reproducibility in today’s scientific literature, especially in the fields of biology, biomedicine and/or analytical science. But who is to blame? And what can we do to turn the tide?
First – a technical point: using antibodies of a commercial nature can scupper reproducibility before an experiment even begins. It’s likely that researchers with limited control over how their antibodies are generated are simply unaware that such reagents are not reproducibly manufactured, packaged or shipped. Neither the manufacturers nor users of such reagents are performing QC or QA to demonstrate reproducibility in the final antibodies. Thus, we can apportion some blame to those manufacturing the reagents; however, anyone versed in analytical method validation (AMV) will know that QC procedures require demonstration of reproducibility (method robustness and ruggedness). It appears that this is rarely done for most biochemical, biological, immunological, biomedical and related studies. What about analytical studies?
Read the full article now
Log in or register to read this article in full and gain access to The Analytical Scientist’s entire content archive. It’s FREE and always will be!
Or register now - it’s free and always will be!
You will benefit from:
- Unlimited access to ALL articles
- News, interviews & opinions from leading industry experts
- Receive print (and PDF) copies of The Analytical Scientist magazine
Or Login via Social Media
By clicking on any of the above social media links, you are agreeing to our Privacy Notice.