Ivan Oransky presented on the frequency of irreproducible studies and the costs associated with non-reproducible preclinical research. An analysis of 53 landmark studies found that scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 cases (11%), despite limitations being acknowledged upfront. A separate analysis found that over 50% of cumulative preclinical research is irreproducible, costing $28 billion annually in the US alone. Oransky also discussed rising retraction rates and efforts by scientists to address issues of reproducibility.

1. How Often Are Studies Wrong?
AHCJ 2016
Cleveland
Ivan Oransky
Vice President, Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch
Distinguished Writer In Residence,
New York University Arthur Carter Journalism Institute
@ivanoransky

4. “Fifty-three papers were deemed 'landmark' studies. It was
acknowledged from the outset that some of the data might not hold
up, because papers were deliberately selected that described
something completely new, such as fresh approaches to targeting
cancers or alternative clinical uses for existing therapeutics.
Nevertheless, scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%)
cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research, this was
a shocking result.”

8. "An analysis of past studies indicates that the cumulative
(total) prevalence of irreproducible preclinical research
exceeds 50%, resulting in approximately
US$28,000,000,000 (US$28B)/year spent on preclinical
research that is not reproducible—in the United States
alone."

10. Retractions on the Rise
http://pmretract.heroku.com/byyear

11. Which Journals Retract?
-Infection and Immunity 2011

12. What Scientists Are Doing About It

13. What Scientists Are Doing About It

14. Contact Info/Acknowledgements
ivan-oransky@erols.com
http://retractionwatch.com
@ivanoransky
Thanks:
The MacArthur Foundation
The Arnold Foundation
The Helmsley Trust
Nancy Lapid, Reuters Health