[Esip-preserve] [FoRCnet.org] Two Articles in current press of interest on replicating results

[anita bandrowski]

Well, without periodic stress testing there is no real progress!
Takes a good wind storm to figure out which trees are well-rooted.


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Bruce Barkstrom <brbarkstrom at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The new issue of The New Yorker has an article:
>
> Goodyear, D., 2016: The Stress Test: Competition and intrigue in
>    stem-cell research, The New Yorker, Feb. 29, 2016, pp. 46-57
>
> It recounts the replication problems in stem-cell research and the
> unfortunate fall-out from lack of repeatability.
>
> The second is a brief snippet in the new issue of Scientific American:
>
> Hackett, J., 2016: Classification Conundrum: Scores of museum
>    specimens carry a name that isn't theirs, Scientific American, 314,
>    No. 3, p. 22
>
> This one references an article in Current Biology that says researchers
> at the Univ. of Oxford and the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
> analyzed the tags on 4,500 specimens of African ginger and 49,000
> specimens of morning glories.  They found that "at least half of the
> names associated with those specimens were synonyms or illegitimate
> names" according to botanist Robert Scotland.
>
> The TNY article claims that stress testing reproducibility worked as
> it should from the standpoint of the scientific method.  The second
> suggests that maybe group efforts could work on the issue in that
> article.
>
> Sigh!  So much work to bring perfection to our efforts.
>
> Bruce B.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "FoRC" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to forcnet+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/esip-preserve/attachments/20160225/2556ba76/attachment.html>