REPLICATION—the confirmation of results and conclusions from one study obtained independently in another—is considered the scientific
gold standard. New tools and technologies, massive amounts of data, long-term studies, interdisciplinary approaches, and the
complexity of the questions being asked are complicating replication efforts, as are increased pressures on scientists to
advance their research. This special section, from the 2 December 2011 issue of Science, explores some of these challenges. Read the full introduction...
From Science
R. D. Peng
Although less than full replication, reproducibility can help to ensure the soundness and validity of findings in computational
sciences.
M. Tomasello and J. Call
Probing primate cognitive capacities relies on creating tasks that pose ecologically valid yet novel challenges.
M. J. Ryan
Field biology offers unique opportunities for discovery, but this comes with trade-offs in terms of true replication.
J. P. A. Ioannidis and M. J. Khoury
Six routine steps can move reliable data to clinical relevance.
B. D. Santer et al.
Independent verification efforts have led to greater understanding of temperature changes at the Earth's surface and in the
troposphere.
J. Crocker and M. L. Cooper
What can be done to protect science and the public from research fraud?
J. Couzin-Frankel
Work that pinpointed the control of aging in a handful of genes is being taken apart by some of the scientists who made early
discoveries. Efforts to replicate studies are producing conflicting results.
A. Cho
One experiment saw neutrinos traveling faster than light. If the result can't be replicated, it may never be explained away.
Science's Jennifer Couzin-Frankel brings us up to speed on the debate surrounding the role of sirtuins in aging.
Listen Now (mp3)
From Science Careers
M. Price
Graduate students need to decide whether to spend time replicating other scientists' data.
