A thinker - boggling $ 28 billion is spent annually on irreproducible biomedical research , a new studyinPLOS Biologysuggests . Scientists hope to spark a discourse on the inefficiency in research with the result of their bold subject area and call for a ‘ epitome shift ’ to solve this problem , which they advise is entirely avertible .
duplicability is the foundation of scientific research . If a sketch can be duplicate by different independent scientists under the same conditions and the same results are bring forth , it ’s more often than not regard as an indicant of good , true research . But if this fails to be the fount , scientists have to question the validity of the methodological analysis and analytic thinking . Researchers from Global Biological Standards Institute have quantified how often this happens and come at a huge identification number : $ 28 billion .
“ The problem of duplicability has been widely hash out , ” said Iain M. Cockburn , Colorado - writer of the bailiwick and an economist at Boston University , in astatement . “ To develop our estimate of the current duplicability charge per unit for preclinical research , we reviewed publicly available data from administration sources , industry and analyst paper and scientific article . ”
The researchers looked at existing papers that attempt to measure the factors that add to irreproducibility and then group the causes into four categories : biological reagent and reference materials , subject area design , data analytic thinking and reporting and laboratory protocols . They feel that blemished biologic reagents and extension materials , such as contaminated cell line , contributed the most to irreproducibility ( 38 % ) , follow by subject area blueprint ( 28 % ) . Researchers do , however , admit toNature Newsthat their analytic thinking was trammel to the data available to them , but advise that addressing this problem will save money and support better research .
“ improve duplicability stratum will require a measured investment in time and resources , ” enjoin Cockburn . “ We recommend investing in hardheaded solutions and taking immediate steps in the areas where there will be the greatest return on investment . ”
Other researchers are sceptical of the results of the study , with microbiologist Ferric Fang from the University of Washington tellingScience magazinethat the determination “ sounds sensationalistic . ”
“ To suggest that 50 % of research dollars are being wasted is ridiculous and unhelpful , ” he added .
Freedman does tellNature Newsthat the message of the discipline is less about the amount of money ‘ wasted , ’ but an chance “ to increase efficiency to get more bam for the Pearl Buck . ”
Top image credit : Őssejtkutatás via Flickr CC BY 2.0
