How Much Of Science Is Reproducible?
Reproducibility is the most fundamental yardstick in science. If a result can’t be replicated, it doesn’t count as science.
Yet in recent years, there has been much talk of a ‘replication crisis’. Many results that we assumed were robust simply cannot be replicated.
The term is typically used in the context of psychology and medicine, though it may apply to other fields as well.
So how much of science is reproducible?
One way of tackling this question is to select a large number of studies from a particular field and then attempt to replicate them. This has been done several times.
A 2012 paper was only able to replicate 11 percent of 53 studies from pre-clinical cancer.
A 2015 paper was only able to replicate 36 percent of 97 studies from psychology.
A 2018 paper did slightly better, replicating 54 percent of 28 studies from that field.
A 2016 paper was able to replicate 60 percent of 100 economics experiments.
Another 2018 paper was able to replicate 62 percent of 21 social science experiments.
These numbers are sobering. But there’s an important caveat: the ‘studies to be replicated’ were selected somewhat arbitrarily, so the corresponding percentage can’t be taken as representative of the entire field.
Another way of tackling the question above is to simply ask researchers what percentage of the studies in your field can be replicated – a sort of ‘wisdom of the crowds’ approach.
This was done in a 2016 survey by the journal Nature. They got 1,500 responses – the vast majority from currently-working scientists. Respondents were asked, “In your opinion, what proportion of published work in your field is reproducible?”
The highest figure – 72 percent – was found in physics. The lowest figure – 52 percent – was found in “other” (which I suspect is mostly social scientists).
Environmental science and medicine had intermediate figures – both 58 percent. Chemistry was a little higher at 65 percent. (Answers did not differ substantially between students and working scientists.)
These figures are again sobering. According to researchers themselves, close to half of published work in medicine, social science and environmental science cannot be replicated.
Unsurprisingly, more ‘objective’ fields like physics and chemistry are perceived to have higher rates of replicability.
Overall, the two methods yield similar findings: a large percentage of results in more ‘subjective’ – dare one say ‘politicized’ – fields are not reproducible.
See more here dailysceptic.org
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
Replication =TRUST and increased certainty. More and more there is less certainty, less trust and every reason to question just about everything.
Reply
Howdy
| #
+1 Tom
I can replicate certain things myself, I prove it is correct and working, time after time, and justified by the end result. Operative word, ‘myself’.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
SCIENCE REPRODUCIBILITY OR LACK OF IT – MISUNDERSTANDING
In general, science should always be reproducible because it is not based on the views of a single person, organization, or select group but on experimentation over several years by multiple people and groups.
However, the expressed view in the article refers to fake science, which will always be irreproducible. Therefore, any reproducibility numbers provided in the article should also be fake because they are reported based on fake science practices.
For example, authorities and pharmacopeias claim to establish the quality of the products (such as tablets and capsules) based on “pharmaceutical science.”
It should be evident that there is no such thing as “pharmaceutical science.” It is a distorted, more like fraudulent, version of chemistry based on imaginary or fictional assumptions and principles; hence by definition, its data and results should not be reproducible or trusted.
The product quality claims have been based on the authorities’ narratives (called standards or guidance), such as FDA, USP, etc.
In this regard, one of the main tests is the drug dissolution test – a chemistry/chemical test. It evaluates the drug release from the products.
The test has never been validated to determine the dissolution of any product. It is highly unpredictable and irrelevant – shown repeatedly. The test reproducibility is that if a product shows a drug release/dissolution at 30 minutes between 55 and 100%, the product is considered of quality. Often, the test even does not provide results within this range.
Now is the PCR “test,” again a chemistry/chemical test, never been validated. Variability or reproducibility is poor and has to be. It is not a science-based test.
Both pharmaceutical and medical science mutually support each other (peer reviews), describing false chemistry and its principles.
Hence, science is not irreproducible, but fake (pharmaceutical and medical) sciences are.
For further details, please follow the link (https://bioanalyticx.com/helpful-notes-a-great-gift-idea/).
Reply
Dr Wilson Sy
| #
Most of the “sciences” related to humans: medicine, economics, sociology, etc., are not science, because many of their accepted facts are not reproducible, as evident from this article. Most of these “sciences” are fake because their flawed models of “human” are based on rationalist fallacies. For example, in economics, humans are robots with predictable behavior.
Reply