IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0063221.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Survey on Data Reproducibility in Cancer Research Provides Insights into Our Limited Ability to Translate Findings from the Laboratory to the Clinic

Author

Listed:
  • Aaron Mobley
  • Suzanne K Linder
  • Russell Braeuer
  • Lee M Ellis
  • Leonard Zwelling

Abstract

Background: The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries depend on findings from academic investigators prior to initiating programs to develop new diagnostic and therapeutic agents to benefit cancer patients. The success of these programs depends on the validity of published findings. This validity, represented by the reproducibility of published findings, has come into question recently as investigators from companies have raised the issue of poor reproducibility of published results from academic laboratories. Furthermore, retraction rates in high impact journals are climbing. Methods and Findings: To examine a microcosm of the academic experience with data reproducibility, we surveyed the faculty and trainees at MD Anderson Cancer Center using an anonymous computerized questionnaire; we sought to ascertain the frequency and potential causes of non-reproducible data. We found that ∼50% of respondents had experienced at least one episode of the inability to reproduce published data; many who pursued this issue with the original authors were never able to identify the reason for the lack of reproducibility; some were even met with a less than “collegial” interaction. Conclusions: These results suggest that the problem of data reproducibility is real. Biomedical science needs to establish processes to decrease the problem and adjudicate discrepancies in findings when they are discovered.

Suggested Citation

  • Aaron Mobley & Suzanne K Linder & Russell Braeuer & Lee M Ellis & Leonard Zwelling, 2013. "A Survey on Data Reproducibility in Cancer Research Provides Insights into Our Limited Ability to Translate Findings from the Laboratory to the Clinic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-4, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0063221
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063221
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063221
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063221&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0063221?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William Neaves, 2012. "The roots of research misconduct," Nature, Nature, vol. 488(7409), pages 121-122, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. J Kyle Medley & Kiri Choi & Matthias König & Lucian Smith & Stanley Gu & Joseph Hellerstein & Stuart C Sealfon & Herbert M Sauro, 2018. "Tellurium notebooks—An environment for reproducible dynamical modeling in systems biology," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-24, June.
    2. Jacob Beal & Traci Haddock-Angelli & Markus Gershater & Kim de Mora & Meagan Lizarazo & Jim Hollenhorst & Randy Rettberg & iGEM Interlab Study Contributors, 2016. "Reproducibility of Fluorescent Expression from Engineered Biological Constructs in E. coli," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-22, March.
    3. SeungHye Han & Tolani F Olonisakin & John P Pribis & Jill Zupetic & Joo Heung Yoon & Kyle M Holleran & Kwonho Jeong & Nader Shaikh & Doris M Rubio & Janet S Lee, 2017. "A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0063221. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.