In January, news broke that on another of the replicability trials. Researchers from the Center for Open Science and Science Exchange, won grant funding to replicate 50 important studies. They have just published the first results of the project, having picked 5 influential research studies that focused on cancer. Of the 5 studies, three of the replication trials had strikingly different results than the original published studies. The results are leaving scientists with many questions: for example, the researchers interested in replicability did not try to figure out why 3 of the studies had achieved different results: should that be a goal? An author of one of the original studies, Iriving Weissman, also argued that the people reproducing his experiment had focused on a peripheral finding from his study, rather than the main one. As an NPR article points out, this result has implications for cancer research, as the original articles have influenced the direction of research in the field, as well as research funding.
Curious? You can read (or listen to) the NPR report, or read the editorial, feature article, and review article describing the replication process, its goals and its results, published in the open access journal eLife.