Here are my slides on my Editorial in Conservation Biology: “The Statistics Wars and Intellectual Conflicts of Interest” Mayo (2021) presented at the 11 January Phil Stat Forum with speakers: Deborah G. Mayo and Yoav Benjamini and moderator David Hand. (Benjamini’s slides & full Video to come shortly)
D. Mayo Y. Benjamini. D. Hand
For more details on the focus and background readings see this post on the Phil Stat Forum blog or this post January 10 post.
In an attempt to fix the problem of “unreal” results in science some have started a “reproducibility initiative”. Think of the incentive for being explicit about how the results were obtained the first time….But would researchers really pay to have their potential errors unearthed in this way? Even for a “good scientist” badge of approval?
August 14, 2012
Fixing Science’s Problem of ‘Unreal’ Results: “Good Scientist: You Get a Badge!”
Carl Zimmer, Slate
As a young biologist, Elizabeth Iorns did what all young biologists do: She looked around for something interesting to investigate. Having earned a Ph.D. in cancer biology in 2007, she was intrigued by a paper that appeared the following year in Nature. Biologists at the University of California-Berkeley linked a gene called SATB1 to cancer. They found that it becomes unusually active in cancer cells and that switching it on in ordinary cells made them cancerous. The flipside proved true, too: Shutting down SATB1 in cancer cells returned them to normal. The results raised the exciting possibility that SATB1 could open up a cure for cancer. So Iorns decided to build on the research.
There was just one problem. As her first step, Iorns tried replicate the original study. She couldn’t. Boosting SATB1 didn’t make cells cancerous, and shutting it down didn’t make the cancer cells normal again.
For some years now, scientists have gotten increasingly worried about replication failures. In one recent example, NASA made a headline-grabbing announcement in 2010 that scientists had found bacteria that could live on arsenic—a finding that would require biology textbooks to be rewritten. At the time, many experts condemned the paper as a poor piece of science that shouldn’t have been published. This July, two teams of scientists reported that they couldn’t replicate the results. Continue reading