xkcd #3117: Replication Crisis
Title text:
Maybe encouraging the publication of null results isn’t enough–maybe we need a journal devoted to publishing results the study authors find personally annoying.
Transcript:
Transcript will show once it’s been added to explainxkcd.com
Source: https://xkcd.com/3117/
I’m guessing he still didn’t admit his work might be wrong at that point?
I would propose a more generous starting position than “you’re wrong.” Maybe “our understanding is incomplete.”
There are many stories that could be a long the vein of one I saw personally: a night-shift leaning researcher can’t get a protocol to work after being trained on it. They go back to the post-doc that trained them to troubleshoot - works flawlessly. When they do it by themselves (typically at night) it fails again.
After much agony and self-blame, turns out the enzyme they were studying was regulated by the organism’s circadian cycle. They protein they were studying was off at night and no one knew.
Contradiction in science frequently masks a deeper biological truth.
That’s a charitable way of looking at it. A lot of big egos in academia is my first hand experience, so that’s what I jump to.
If he did his career could be in jeopardy. It’s not an honesty or integrity problem.