Consensus, Reproducibility and Predictability

Skeptics who are maligned, sued or subpoenaed because they argue and disagree with proponents of global warming about the “settled” science of climate change should take comfort in the following findings:

In 2013, Amgen researchers announced that they were unable to reproduce the findings of 47 out of 53 landmark cancer papers.

In 2015, the Open Science Collaboration reported it could reproduce only about half of the findings of nearly 100 major psychology studies it attempted. The researchers could REPEAT almost all of the studies but REPLICATE the findings in less than half. Or, as the journal Science's positive spin put it, “they find that about one-third to one-half of the original findings were also observed in the replication study.”

In the medical arena, at least, U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf is suggesting action: a database of preclinical trials could help the field overcome its reproducibility issues, Stat News reports. Apparently, there is no database for preclinical research, which involves lab animals or living cells and may lead to human trials. 

“If you think reproducibility and the fabric of science, in some ways, if it were possible, it would really good to have something like a ClinicalTrials.gov for preclinical work,” Califf says. That website collects data on human testing that research universities, hospitals and drug companies are required by law to report to the federal government, which can fine researchers who fail to comply.

Now if only as much attention were paid to “climate studies” funded by the agencies that benefit from gloomy outcomes.