presnik@bbn.com (Philip Resnik) (03/13/89)
Article <3437@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> drsmith@silver.UUCP (drew smith) writes: >That is precisely what the scientific literature is for. For >better or worse there are no rewards in science for repeating >others experiments. Therefore no *competent* scientist will waste >his/her time doing what's been done before. I find this rather disturbing. I just happen to have finished _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_, by Nobel-prize-winning physicist Richard P. Feynman, and he had some extremely relevant points to make on this topic. His feeling was that it is *absolutely necessary* to replicate experiments, not only because replications confirm results, but also because experimenters have their own goals in mind, and this tends to influence the experiment. (My paraphrase is awful -- read the book!) I am all for making maximal use of the scientific literature; I'm the first person you'll find doing keyword searches in electronic databases, tracing through bibliographies, and querying the appropriate sci.group to find smart people who already know the answers. *But* the replication of experimental results is absolutely critical -- if more "competent" scientists took the time replicating experiments, I believe science in general would benefit. Certainly students should learn this is a worthwhile thing to do. (Unfortunately, most everyone these days seems to be after high-payoff, short-term results and high visibility -- a problem that probably deserves serious discussion in this newsgroup.) Now, this completely ignores the original issue, which was minimizing cruelty to animals by not re-doing experiments unnecessarily. This is a very worthwhile goal. As always, though, there's a tradeoff involved: on the one hand, reducing the number of animal experiments, and, on the other hand, maintaining good scientific standards by replicating results. Alternatives like using tissue rather than entire animals seem to me to be a win in both cases, but I don't know much about that area. Comments? Philip Resnik presnik@bbn.com All views expressed above are mine, all mine!
drsmith@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (drew smith) (03/14/89)
In article <37128@bbn.COM> presnik@labs-n.bbn.com (Philip Resnik) writes: >...it is >*absolutely necessary* to replicate experiments, not only because >replications confirm results, but also because experimenters have >their own goals in mind, and this tends to influence the experiment. >... *But* the replication >of experimental results is absolutely critical -- if more "competent" >scientists took the time replicating experiments, I believe science in >general would benefit. Scientific knowledge is based upon a chain of inferences. If one or more of those inferences is incorrect it will, sooner or later, lead to the formulation of an experimentally testable hypothesis whose predictions will be disproved. It is at this stage that it is most worthwhile to the average competent scientist to repeat someone else's experiment, in order to see if his/her reasoning, or the assumptions it was based on was incorrect. This, to me, seems the most efficient way of validating reported results. If a result is truly important, it will lead to further experimentation, which will necessarily test its accuracy. A result which does not stimulate further experimentation will soon be deservedly forgotten, without any additional waste of time and money. - Drew Smith Dept. of Biology, Indiana University
robert@blake.acs.washington.edu (Gedankenleere) (03/18/89)
Sounds good, but how do you get people to go for it if there's no glory or reputation in it? Great if your an established big name somebody who can get funding or positions on just your reputation, but most researchers, young scientits-in-training are not in this position. And you know, the search for funding and reputations is just a great a force, if not more, in scientific research as is the search for knowledge or thrill of discovery. Even purely theoretical research is not immune to this. And so, this is why EXACT repetition of experimental results are consigned to students and post docs for the most part (as excerices). [And if they should find something worthwhile or even earth-shattering in the process, the head scientist(s) or profs may just take full credit for it.] Look, scientits are human like the rest of us, and they do not behave the way of the caricatures that the people in the humanities or mass media often portray them as behaving. How many scientists in the universities, research centers, etc. look or act like those buffoon Nerds, so much of the public, and our school children know them as??