Study Cannot Confirm Many Lab Results for Cancer Experiments
2021-12-13
LRC
TXT
大字
小字
滚动
全页
1Eight years ago, a team of researchers launched a project to carefully repeat early and influential lab experiments in cancer research.
2The Reproducibility Project as it is called recreated 50 experiments.
3Now, it reports that about half of the experiments did not produce the results reported originally.
4The reproducibility of experiments and confirmation of results is central to wide acceptance of scientific claims.
5"The truth is we fool ourselves.
6Most of what we claim is novel or significant is no such thing," said Dr. Vinay Prasad.
7He is a cancer doctor and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco and was not involved in the project.
8Most scientists believe that the strongest findings come from experiments that can be repeated with similar results.
9But there is little reason for researchers to share methods and data so others can confirm the work, said Marcia McNutt.
10She is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
11Researchers lose respect in the scientific community if their results do not hold up to careful study, she added.
12For the project, the researchers tried to repeat experiments from cancer biology papers.
13The papers had appeared in major scientific publications, including Nature and Cell, from 2010 to 2012.
14Overall, 54 percent of the original findings failed to meet conditions set by the Reproducibility Project.
15The team's study appears in the journal eLife.
16The nonprofit eLife receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which also supports The Associated Press Health and Science Department.
17Among the studies that did not hold up was one that claimed a link between a stomach bacteria and colon cancer.
18Another claimed a drug had shrunk tumors in mice.
19And, a third was a mouse study of a possible prostate cancer drug.
20This is the second major study by the Reproducibility Project.
21In 2015, they found similar problems when they tried to repeat experiments in psychology.
22Study co-writer Brian Nosek of the Center for Open Science said it can be wasteful to move forward without first doing the work to repeat findings.
23The researchers tried to limit differences in how the cancer experiments were carried out.
24Often, they could not get help from the scientists who did the original work.
25They could not get answers to questions such as which kinds of mice to use or where to find specially engineered tumor cells.
26Michael Lauer is a deputy director of research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
27He said, "I wasn't surprised, but it is concerning that about a third of scientists were not helpful, and, in some cases, were beyond not helpful."
28Lauer added that the NIH plans to require data-sharing among organizations to which it provides support in 2023.
29Dr. Glenn Begley is a bio-technology advisor and former head of cancer research at drugmaker Amgen.
30Ten years ago, he and other scientists at Amgen reported even lower rates of confirmation when they tried to repeat published cancer experiments.
31Cancer research is difficult, Begley said.
32He added that "it is very easy for researchers to be attracted to results that look exciting and provocative, results that appear to further support their favorite idea as to how cancer should work, but that are just wrong."
33I'm Jonathan Evans.
1Eight years ago, a team of researchers launched a project to carefully repeat early and influential lab experiments in cancer research. The Reproducibility Project as it is called recreated 50 experiments. Now, it reports that about half of the experiments did not produce the results reported originally. 2The reproducibility of experiments and confirmation of results is central to wide acceptance of scientific claims. 3"The truth is we fool ourselves. Most of what we claim is novel or significant is no such thing," said Dr. Vinay Prasad. He is a cancer doctor and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco and was not involved in the project. 4Most scientists believe that the strongest findings come from experiments that can be repeated with similar results. 5But there is little reason for researchers to share methods and data so others can confirm the work, said Marcia McNutt. She is president of the National Academy of Sciences. Researchers lose respect in the scientific community if their results do not hold up to careful study, she added. 6For the project, the researchers tried to repeat experiments from cancer biology papers. The papers had appeared in major scientific publications, including Nature and Cell, from 2010 to 2012. 7Overall, 54 percent of the original findings failed to meet conditions set by the Reproducibility Project. The team's study appears in the journal eLife. The nonprofit eLife receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which also supports The Associated Press Health and Science Department. 8Among the studies that did not hold up was one that claimed a link between a stomach bacteria and colon cancer. Another claimed a drug had shrunk tumors in mice. And, a third was a mouse study of a possible prostate cancer drug. 9This is the second major study by the Reproducibility Project. In 2015, they found similar problems when they tried to repeat experiments in psychology. 10Study co-writer Brian Nosek of the Center for Open Science said it can be wasteful to move forward without first doing the work to repeat findings. 11The researchers tried to limit differences in how the cancer experiments were carried out. Often, they could not get help from the scientists who did the original work. They could not get answers to questions such as which kinds of mice to use or where to find specially engineered tumor cells. 12Michael Lauer is a deputy director of research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He said, "I wasn't surprised, but it is concerning that about a third of scientists were not helpful, and, in some cases, were beyond not helpful." 13Lauer added that the NIH plans to require data-sharing among organizations to which it provides support in 2023. 14Dr. Glenn Begley is a bio-technology advisor and former head of cancer research at drugmaker Amgen. Ten years ago, he and other scientists at Amgen reported even lower rates of confirmation when they tried to repeat published cancer experiments. 15Cancer research is difficult, Begley said. He added that "it is very easy for researchers to be attracted to results that look exciting and provocative, results that appear to further support their favorite idea as to how cancer should work, but that are just wrong." 16I'm Jonathan Evans. 17Carla K. Johnson reported on this story for the Associated Press. Jonathan Evans adapted this story for Learning English. Caty Weaver was the editor. 18______________________________________________ 19Words in This Story 20originally - adv. in the beginning; when something first happened or began 21novel - adj. new and different from what is already known 22significant - adj. large enough to be noticed or have an effect 23journal - n. a magazine that reports on things of special interest to a particular group of people 24provocative - adj. causing discussion, thought, argument, etc.