EDITORIAL

Replication challenges

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  06 Sep 2019:
Vol. 365, Issue 6457, pp. 957
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaz2701

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: Replication challenges

    I was excited to see this editorial. Not that lack of reproducibility in published science excites me (quite the opposite) but the fact that the issue is brought forward. Looking through history, reproducibility of results and observations was at the core of what swayed opinions and created modern science - one of the earliest was the confirmation of Tycho Brahe's observations that shattered the notion of immutability of the sky. Joseph Priestly, in 18th century, pushed for experiments that can easily be reproduced by everybody so that all can observe the facts and reveal scientific truth. On the other side, the opposition to Lavoisier's early work was at least partly due to the inability of others to reproduce his observations-they simply did not have as sensitive equipment as Lavoisier's.And there is, of course, Boyle's trouble with his air pump and Hobbes' subsequent vehement criticism of experiment in general. It is exactly due to the work of these and numerous other early scientists that we take reproducibility as one of fundamental pillars of science - little progress would have been possible if yesterday's observations could not be repeated today. The science became the robust enterprise, able of self-correcting. Unfortunately, every redacted paper, and every research ethics investigation undermine this foundation of science. The respectability of scientific enterprise is also at stake here - by now we should be acutely aware of public...

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.

Stay Connected to Science

Navigate This Article