Peer review: Of 53 landmark publications, 47 could not be replicated
|April 1, 2012||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review|
In “Science sucks”at ID-friendly blog Telic Thoughts, chunkdz tells us (and unfortunately, this is not an April Fool’s joke),
Not science as a method, but science as an enterprise. Everybody who’s ever given money to cancer research should really be pissed about this. [HT Mike Gene]
Scientists are no different from most people. Dangle big wads of cash or prestige in front of them and they’ll do just about anything to get it. Here’s some key quotes:
During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 “landmark” publications — papers in top journals, from reputable labs — for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development.
Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated.
Note this is not a random sampling. It represents what the head of Amgen research thought was “the best of the best” in cancer research. More.
Chalk one up for peer review.