The scientific repeatability crisis has become a hot topic in the world.
Since 2005, John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford University, published more papers on "why Most published Findings Are False" published in the PLOS Medicine Journal, more and more error, misleading, or non-repeatable research Results have been exposed.
The two major pharmaceutical companies each have a "milestone" significance of the cancer biology papers were sampled, respectively, only confirmed 6%, 11% of the findings. There is also a similar validation experiment, the results are not satisfactory: 70 re-validation of efficacy, for the treatment of mouse muscle atrophy (ALS) potential drug targets were all negative. In the field of psychology, the researchers tried to repeat 100 peer review studies, only 39 repeated success ... ... Although most of the repeated experiments focused on biomedical, health and psychology, but the recent one by the multi-field A survey conducted by 1,500 scientists showed that the problem of low reproducibility of scientific research was widespread.
From the scientific community rumors of the "repeatability crisis" has been transformed into a hot topic of world attention. Almost a lot of mainstream newspapers, TED keynote speech, television programs have hot on this issue. There are two types of interpretations of this problem:
Science is like that. Science itself has uncertainty, contradictions are common. The problem is that we have not put our own expectations for science. The solution is to distinguish the scientific research results that have not yet been finalized and the scientific results that have been identified.
Science is not the case. Contradictory research implies a flawed science. The corresponding solution is to change the way scientific research works.
Reproducible evidence suggests that both are: scientific inherent uncertainty, and its approach needs to be improved.
Scientific method of "science"?
If the scientific method is "scientific", why the same experiment will produce different results?
For ease of understanding, we can imagine a simple experiment to test the theory of gravity. For centuries, Aristotle's theory prevailed: the speed of falling objects was proportional to its weight. If you also throw a stone and feather at the same time, the heavier stone is faster than the light of the feathers. Does this prove Aristotle's theory?
Now let's imagine that Aristotle's critics Galileo also dropped shells and rifles at the same time. This is a different authentication method for the same theory. Although the respective weight is very different, the two balls are still landing at the same time. This demonstration proves that Aristotle's theory is wrong (although there is no evidence that Galileo himself has done).
The meaning of the story is not Aristotle completely wrong. His observation is still right, a feather is always slower than the stone falling (on earth). It was only his conclusion that was wrong.
This experimental experiment shows how the conclusion of the scientist is beyond the actual evidence - the process is the so-called induction. Induction is an essential part of the scientific process, and no two experiments can be identical, and this obvious fact can explain why many scientific theories fail.
Details over Taishan
In the 17th century, Robert Boyle's air pump was a key device for studying vacuum properties. Another scientist, Christiaan Huygens, built his air pump (one of the few air pumps in the world at the time) and found a phenomenon in which water was suspended in a glass jar Inside. He calls it "abnormal suspension" of water. But Boyle can not repeat the effect in his air pump, then rejected the Huygens claim. After a few months of the dispute, Huygens went to England to replace the water suspension with the wave of the gas in Poyer, and the abnormal suspension of water was accepted. Why does it appear to mean what is still a mystery, but the experiment is repeated successfully.
Recently, the University of California, Berkeley, breast cancer researcher Mina Bissell and Harvard University partner Kornelia Polyak had a similar controversy. The two laboratories used fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) to human breast cancer cells and found that experiments could not be repeated each other. Eventually they solved the problem by experimenting together. They found that the results depend on the way the cells are oscillating - "vigorously agitated" or "slightly shaking". After eliminating the differences in the method, the two laboratories obtained consistent flow cytometry data, which was able to continue in-depth study.
Aristotle and Galileo, Boyle and Huygens and Bissell and Polyak controversy, are derived from the inconsistency in the experiment. If all the experimental conditions are the same, the experimental phenomenon will be very stable. Experimental results are not the same, it shows that some conditions are different, the problem is that you can not find where the difference is.
However, not all scientific research will be the case.
False and truth
Repetitive crises and possible solutions originated in the 1970s. In 1976, the pictures taken by the Pirates No. 1 spacecraft on Mars in the Cydonia region looked like a man's face. A few days later, NASA released this "face" of the photo, immediately aroused the sensation of the media industry, when some people even said that the book has a humanoid civilization on Mars, also built a pyramid.
Of course, NASA scientists regard it as an optical illusion that is not considered. Then from the different angles of shooting high-resolution photos on the point of view, "face" looks completely like a face.
Today, some scientists are still listening to their own data in the Mars face map. In the case of tight budgets and intense competition in the job market, they choose to write the results of doubt into their resumes, but that's all. When someone reviews with improved technology or different angles, just as after the image of Khania, most of the original conclusions are untenable.
But regardless of the outcome, repeated verification will give us more confidence, believe that science will eventually reveal the truth - whether it is really a face, or just a stone.
prev:One article to understand autoimmune diseases(2017-03-26)
next:CD32A was found in the T-cell surface glycoprotein CD4 HIV reservoir harbouring of human bood(2017-03-29)