We Should Not Accept Scientific Results That Have Not Been Repeated

I think with the increased visibility of scientific research to the general public, it's less that science needs to stop accepting unrepeated results, but instead the paper process needs to be updated to reflect the new level of availability, and journal databases need better relationship views between papers and repeated tests.

As an outsider looking in on the Scientific process, I am not really sure how applicable my opinions are, but I see these as useful changes.

Basically, in reverse order, my suggestions for science to adopt are as follows:

Papers in databases need to have fields related to reproduction studies, and it needs to start becoming a prideful part of the scientific process; just as there is a lot of pride and money, researchers should start to thump their chest based on the reproducibility of their work, actively seeking out contemporaries and requesting a reproduction study as part of the pubilshing process, and subsequently updating.

The papers published themselves should take a moment (perhaps no more than a paragraph) to include a "for media" section that outlines the "do's and don't's" on reporting on the research. For example, cancer research should clearly state examples of acceptable understandings in lay person terms as a sort of catch for sloppy reporting. Something like "Do not write "cure for cancer found" or "Effective treatment", instead write "progress made, etc". Basically put a sucker punch to outlandish headlines and reporting right in the paper itself, and let journalists who want to be sensationalist embarrass themselves.

This seems like two very simple acts that could raise the bar for science a bit.

> One part of science is observation. Including observations which cannot be, or at least have not been, repeated. For example, consider a rare event in astronomy which has only been detected once. Is that science? I say it is. But it's surely not repeatable.

First off, you can accept the observation at face value as an observation, but conclusions drawn from the claims which have no other support or means of verification should not be accepted and would not be accepted. Fortunately, most of the time even if something is initially sparked by a very rare occurrence, it will have some kind of implications that are verifiable by some other means other than just waiting for something to happen in space.

But even something that is rare and relies on observation, like gravitational waves, we have already been able to identify more than one occurrence.

> Some experiments are immoral to repeat. For example, in a drug trial you may find that 95% survive with a given treatment, while only 5% survive with the placebo.

What's more immoral, releasing a drug that's only had one test, even a striking one, on the public as a miracle cure that you have not truly verified or performing another test to actually be sure of your claims before you release it?

> Who among you is going to argue that someone else needs to repeat that experiment before we regard it as a proper scientific result?

That's how science works. If something is not independently repeatable and verifiable then science breaks down. Look at the recent EM drive. Most scientists in the field were skeptical of it, and once it was finally attempted to be independently verified the problems were found.

Independent verification is the cornerstone of science and what makes it different from bogus claims by charlatans.

Those are both good but the key here is the media needs to understand that scientific papers that have not been independently verified are in a "maybe" state.

Of course, they probably do know this and just choose to ignore it because "Unverified Study that MIGHT Point to M&M's Being Good For You" won't get as many clicks as "M&M's Are Good For You Says New Study!"

Great points, thanks!

UGH. Scientists are not getting funds to repeat result.