[HTML][HTML] Irreproducibility of published bioscience research: Diagnosis, pathogenesis and therapy

JS Flier - Molecular metabolism, 2017 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Molecular metabolism, 2017ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
During a 40 year career as a biomedical researcher and academic leader, my primary
professional goal has been to discover and disseminate new knowledge relevant to biology
and health, with my own efforts focused on metabolic physiology and disease. I have done
this during a period of dynamic growth of the bioscience enterprise, which has produced
remarkable discoveries to illuminate our understanding of human biology and disease while
creating numerous benefits for the health and welfare of society. The bioscience research …
During a 40 year career as a biomedical researcher and academic leader, my primary professional goal has been to discover and disseminate new knowledge relevant to biology and health, with my own efforts focused on metabolic physiology and disease. I have done this during a period of dynamic growth of the bioscience enterprise, which has produced remarkable discoveries to illuminate our understanding of human biology and disease while creating numerous benefits for the health and welfare of society. The bioscience research ecosystem that supports this effort is large and complex. Physicians and PhD scientists in academia and industry conduct basic and clinical research, spending over 100 billion dollars yearly in the US alone [1]. The results of this research eventually appear in over one million scientific papers per year [2], in more than 5000 journals [3] of varying focus, standards, and impact. These publications are the bricks on which the edifice of scientific progress is built. The worldwide scientific community reads, discusses, assesses, and wherever possible builds upon the results reported in these papers. The overall arc of progress from this activity is evident, and there is little doubt that the future will continue to bring discoveries of profoundly important impact. But the direction of scientific progress is not exclusively forward. Much research is exploratory in nature, and tentative conclusions are both expected and beneficial. Research publications will contain errors, despite procedures designed to avoid them. Fortunately, a fundamental attribute of science is its capacity for “self-correction”, through published ideas and claims being reviewed and tested by others [4]. Although scientists should and most often do seek to publish reliable results, to expect a standard of certainty before publication, and/or to excessively stigmatize or penalize claims later found honestly to be in error, would diminish progress by replacing a spirit of scientific excitement and daring with professional fear of error. The key question, therefore, is to define an optimal balance, surely weighted in the direction of reliability, but appropriately tolerant of tentative conclusions and honest errors, while continuously seeking to reduce the latter.
But today we face claims, from a variety of sources, that published bioscience research is far less reproducible than anyone previously imagined [5e7]. If the most extreme of these claims are true, they challenge the integrity of the research enterprise, threatening the public support and funding that sustain it. Indeed, we might be required to seriously reconsider our approach to conducting and publishing research. Consequently, the bioscience research community, and those committed to its success, must take these claims seriously.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov