Xref: utzoo sci.research:703 talk.politics.misc:23444 sci.bio:1928
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!bbn!bbn.com!presnik
From: presnik@bbn.com (Philip Resnik)
Newsgroups: sci.research,talk.politics.misc,sci.bio
Subject: Re: replicating experiments (was animal research)
Message-ID: <37128@bbn.COM>
Date: 13 Mar 89 14:10:01 GMT
References: <726@orbit.UUCP> <3254@ttrdc.UUCP> <3437@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: presnik@labs-n.bbn.com (Philip Resnik)
Distribution: na
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 41

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!