As a geneticist I think there are a multitude of factors at play in clinical research, drug trails, and meta-analyses that all feed into the issue. And while there are serious issues that need to be addressed, what often gets lost in translation as it were, when these highly technical issues get discussed and presented to the general public, is that this scientific process is still the best and most reliable method we have developed for determining some form of objective truth.

What’s also lost in the translation is what exactly we mean by “incorrect” or failure to replicate. To the non scientist, and particularly for those who are actually anti-science, this is fodder for equating the practice and results with “made up bullshit.” They quickly take what is being reported on with regards to medical research and extend it as a reason to support anti-vaccination propaganda, and from there it spreads to anti-global warming and anti-evolution propagandists. Its important to keep in mind that in the proper scientific context not being able to replicate a finding doesn’t mean the original observations have no validity.

The worst offences do need to be weeded out. And better best practices followed in terms of how research is reported. Raw data deposition that is easily accessible and easy to work with (properly labelled and explained, etc) is also a must. We also have to be develop a culture of encouraging the publishing of negative results, because they are important too, and giving proper encouragement and funding for replicating findings in the first place. Some of these issues are relatively minor, but others require both more funding, and some pretty big changes to how we choose what to fund.