/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12162825
>should be trusted over other researchers failing to replicate it. Am I right? Is replication not the standard here?
A negative result does not automatically take precedence over a positive one. I mean yes, if we're going to state the obvious it's quite possible Blank and Goodman were either mistaken outright or full of it. It's also possible that a multitrillion dollar thoroughly entrenched international industrial complex knows who to pay to get the results they want. Or, some particularity of the author's replication differed, such as the magnetic field from an incubator, ambient fields in the building, exposure during a different phase of the cell cycle, exposure of a cell type which is not as responsive overall, other methodological issues. Who knows? That's why you have to go to the early history, and you have to weigh it against the broader body of literature. A number of transcriptome studies have been done by authors other than Blank and Goodman, and a large number of them found statistically significant changes.

Overall replication is obviously the standard, however there are a large range of variables to account for in this particular field which can sway results in in vitro models widely. The definition and "granularity" of a replication is important.

>It is pure speculation.
It's a review.
[2/2]