From The Scientist:
Of 441 randomly selected biomedical research papers analyzed in a new study, none provided access to all the authors’ data. And only one of these papers shared a complete protocol. The results of this analysis, which could shed light on science’s reproducibility problem, were published today (January 4) in PLOS Biology.
“What was most surprising to me was the complete lack of data-sharing and protocol availability,” said study coauthor John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and health research and policy at the Stanford University School of Medicine. “That was worse than I would have predicted.”
“This study confirms what most of us already know—that the current clinical research enterprise is set up in a way that researchers consider data their own assets,” said cardiologist Harlan Krumholz, leader of the Yale University Open Data Access Project, who was not involved in the work. “There is little investment, effort, or tools to support data-sharing broadly,” he said. “The advantage of this study is that it brings this issue into public view.” More.
See also: Missing mice produce questionable data (Researchers: Of those that did report nos, around 30% (53 experiments) reported they had dropped rodents from their study analysis, but only 14 explained why.)
Mice studies often meaningless for humans? Researcher: “Animal models are limited in their ability to mimic the extremely complex process of human carcinogenesis, physiology and progression.”
Follow UD News at Twitter!