Rigorous But Reasonable

Bias often influences our decisions, including the ones we make regarding our scientific reasoning and application. Of course, we should be as conscious as possible to the biases that could invalidate one of our many experiments. However, let's be honest. We our young scientists who will more than likely reach the point where "good enough" may guide the last efforts at the end of a long and exhausting day. We will surely use shortcuts on well-established methods if it means getting out of the lab at a reasonable time for once. But does this kind of mentality have a significant effect on the quality of scientific data? I would say it does to an extent, but to think that past scientists in our position have been perfect and exact with their methodology will only cause you unnecessary anxiety.

There is only so much we can do as scientists and as individuals wanting to develop outside of the lab. Therefore, when reviewing scientific literature, this inevitability must be kept in the mind. This should also apply to the process of replication. When attempting to replicate a previously successful experiment, it should be approached with caution. I think it is naive to expect to get the same results if the established protocol was emulated with no deviation. To think that the graduate student who collected this data was perfectly adherent to the protocol with complete concentration on the work at hand is ludicrous. There will always be deviation in both results and methodology because that is the nature of data and people collecting and analyzing data.

Replication is not very enticing anyways. I, for one, do not want to flip through papers, attempting to mimic every exact detail, only to have it fail. If there was someway to incentivize replication, we may be able to ease the pain of failed replication. Maybe we can have institutions provide monetary reward to replicate hallmark papers? Or possibly have journals offer some kind of payback for the completion of a replicate experiment. But if we're supposed to put so much worried emphasis on replication, then why haven't there been any huge pushes to replicate and refine more?

We are discovering more and more papers that are wrong, but science has still progressed and important discoveries are still being made. I guess it could be possible that we are reaching a critical bubble where we discover everything in the last three decades is completely wrong, but that seems pretty unlikely. Instead, I believe that as critically thinking scientists, we will take it upon ourselves to question our assumptions made on established theory and adjust and reject when necessary. The overemphasis on replication is impractical and will only hinder future progress. If it is evident that outright deception is involved, then it becomes a different conversation, not one about replication. However, if hypotheses that were honestly thought to be true are actually found wrong, then I do not see that as a failure to replicate. I see it more as another finding that will create further interest into the discrepancy between old and new research.