Science for the Greater Good

     As a young scientist, one has an illusion that experiments will work on the first attempt if all of the details are worked out prior to the actual conduction of the experiment. However, this is never really the case. One does not really take into consideration the amount of time that is put into optimizing protocols and actually gathering data that appears to be reliable. Thus, what seemed like a two-week experiment, suddenly turned into two months. What is worse is the fact that when it comes to publishing, a scientist tends to publish the results of that one experiment that worked out of the ten or fifteen that were attempted. This outcome, resulting from bias in science, can have future consequences as other scientists look to reproduce the data that was originally published. However, is the lack of reproducibility a newer trend? Not necessarily. In Jared Horvath’s “The Replication Myth: Shedding Light on One of Science’s DirtyLittle Secrets,” it is stated that great scientists of the past experienced the same dilemma. One example is during the 17^th century, Galileo conducted an experiment that supposedly confirmed his theory of the law of motion of falling bodies by rolling a brass ball down a wooden board and observing its acceleration. However, after some years, Marin Mersenne repeated the same experiment but did not obtain comparable results, which led him to conclude that Galileo may have concocted his data.

     One reason that is given by many to explain the lack of reproducibility is this idea of “publish-or-perish.” Essentially, it describes that principal investigators must constantly put out publications of their research in order to maintain their career or scientific reputation. Although published works are a testament of the scientific research that they conduct, in my opinion, one must try to avoid falling into this trap. For example, in biomedical research, the value of the work would be undermined and, a far greater concern of mine, would be the devastating effects that this would have on public health as well as public perception of scientific research. The general public relies on the research that is done by the experts. If scientists can’t provide reliable and reproducible research, then how can they expect support from the general public? It is the responsibility of the researcher to adequately communicate their science to the public, but it is also equally as important for the science to be reliable. If not, then this could lead to false hopes for families that are waiting for the latest results of an experimental drug for their 6-year old son, for instance. In a community in which published work is critical, I, as a young scientist, as well as others eagerly awaiting for the day in which they defend their dissertation, must remember to be fully transparent in the work that we do as well as to be honest. Not only do our futures depend on it, but also the status of biomedical research as well as the lives of the general public for whom we strive to create a better future.