When Science Can't Be Repeated: Tackling a Crisis in Research

Science depends on a simple but critical principle: Research findings should be reliable enough that other researchers can reproduce them.

But what happens when they can't?

Biomedical research is confronting what has become known as the “reproducibility crisis,” with major scientific journals estimating that more than 80% of published biomedical research is negatively affected by defects that can make findings non-reproducible or unusable.

Now, researchers at Augusta University are taking a closer look at why research goes wrong – and, more importantly, whether those problems can be prevented before findings are published.

Backed by a new $2.5 million R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health, researchers in Augusta University's School of Public Health will identify common research defects and develop strategies to help scientists avoid them.

The project is led by E. Andrew Balas, MD, PhD, a professor in the Department of Health Management, Economics, and Policy who has spent more than a decade studying the research process itself.

“Research quality is not only a matter of detecting errors after they occur. The critical question is, how can we understand the conditions that produce research defects and develop effective ways to prevent them before they compromise scientific results?”  E. Andrew Balas, MD, PhD

The consequences extend well beyond the laboratory.

Unreliable findings can influence patient care, waste research funding and send other scientists down paths built on results that were never dependable. They can also contribute to something increasingly important for the scientific community: declining public trust.

The Augusta University team plans to create a database of common research defects and examine which stages of the research process are particularly vulnerable. Researchers also envision a tool that could eventually allow scientists to enter information about their methodology and identify potential problems before completing and publishing their work.

Wendy Burnett, PhD, an assistant professor in the School of Public Health and co-investigator on the study, summed up the stakes:

“Years of work and substantial funding may be invested in studies based on results that were never dependable.”  Wendy Burnett, PhD

The interdisciplinary project will also examine the human side of the problem, gathering perspectives from researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors to better understand why research defects happen and what may prevent people from recognizing or addressing them.

Ultimately, the research asks a question that goes to the heart of modern science: How can we make research more trustworthy before mistakes become part of the scientific record?

After the project is complete, Balas and his team hope the results will ultimately impact science and society in many significant ways.

“Research has made wonders in our lives – we have life-saving drugs, we have a lifestyle that is healthier than ever before and so forth. If research could produce more valuable, useful, trustworthy, reproducible results, then we will all be better, and it should also increase public trust in research.”

For media covering scientific integrity, biomedical research, public trust in science, research funding, peer review or the reproducibility crisis, this work offers a timely look at how the scientific community can improve not only what it discovers, but how those discoveries are made.