We Should Not Accept Scientific Results That Have Not Been Repeated

A few years ago, I became aware of serious problem in science: the irreproducibility crisis. A group of researchers at Amgen, an American pharmaceutical company, attempted to replicate 53 landmark cancer discoveries in close collaboration with the authors. Many of these papers were published in high-impact journals and came from prestigious academic institutions. To the surprise of everyone involved, they were able to replicate only six of those papers—approximately 11 percent.  

As expected, this observation had wide reverberations throughout the scientific community. The inability to independently replicate scientific findings threatens to undermine trust in the institution of science.

Yet, as an experimental biologist, my initial reaction to this crisis was dismissive. I reaffirmed to myself that science is self-correcting, and that wrong ideas have a place within scientific discourse. After