Year: 2016
Type: article
Abstract: There is increasing awareness of the problem of unreliable findings across biomedical sciences (Ioannidis, 2005).Many "landmark" findings could not be replicated (Scott et al., 2008;Begley and Ellis, 2012;Steward et al., 2012) and many promising preclinical findings have failed to translate into clinical application (Perel et al., 2007;Prinz et al., 2011), leading many to question whether science is broken (Economist,2013).Central to this problem is a poor appreciation of the role of chance in the scientific process.As neuroscience has developed over the past 50 years, many of the large, easily observable effects have been found, and the field is likely pursuing smaller and more subtle effects.The corresponding growth in computational capabilities (Moore, 1998) means that researchers can run numerous tests on a single dataset in a matter of minutes.The human brain processes randomness poorly, and the huge potential for undisclosed analytical flexibility in modern datamanagement packages leaves researchers increasingly vulnerable to being fooled by chance.
Source: eNeuro
Author: Katherine S. Button
Institution: University of Bath
Language: English
Subfield: Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty
Field: Decision Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $2,925
OpenAlex ID: W2471876301