So much of scientific work is irreproducible. Why is that? What can be done to fix it? In this on-demand webinar organized by Science magazine, experts weigh in on the:
- Impact of the reproducibility crisis on the scientific community and other vested parties
- Importance of understanding how sample quality can impact reproducibility (and technologies that can be easily implemented into workflows to analyze quality)
- Need to identify criteria and standards required to improve drug development and reduce the number of failed experiments
More than half of scientists can’t reproduce their own research
Science drives us forward, there’s no doubt about it. After all, news outlets and media are continually sharing exciting scientific discoveries and findings: new drugs, therapies and treatments. However, scientific research has never been called into question as much as it has been in the last decade. A great deal of this research can’t be reproduced by other scientists, even if it comes from the best academic institutions and published in the best journals.
In a Nature survey, 70% of 1,576 researchers acknowledged that they have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than 50% couldn’t reproduce their own.
How can so much science be irreproducible? What is driving this crisis and how can we stop it from going any further? How can simple improvements in lab practices, such as sample quality monitoring, boost reproducible research?
In this webinar, John Ioannidis from Stanford University, author of the famous article “Why most published research findings are false?” and Gregor Witte, biophysicist from Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität, answer these questions, discuss broadly about reproducibility and offer concrete solutions to improve the practice of science.