Slashdot Mirror
Most Scientists 'Can't Replicate Studies By Their Peers' (bbc.com)
Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests. From a report: This is frustrating clinicians and drug developers who want solid foundations of pre-clinical research to build upon. From his lab at the University of Virginia's Centre for Open Science, immunologist Dr Tim Errington runs The Reproducibility Project, which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies. "The idea here is to take a bunch of experiments and to try and do the exact same thing to see if we can get the same results." You could be forgiven for thinking that should be easy. Experiments are supposed to be replicable. The authors should have done it themselves before publication, and all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions. Sadly nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth.
Change "drug trials" to "climate change", though, and watch the true believers react....
If you can't reproduce it, it's either fake or you were just being sloppy. Either way, it's no wonder ordinary civilians have doubts.
Just imagine how software developers feel with shittier reproduction steps.
As per the subject, this comes from the collision of two things that are completely counter to the process of science.
1) Patent theory. Since many more nations have access to patents than actually respect patents, it is self-destructive to put enough detail in a patent to actually build what the patent is for. For research papers, this has the benefit of being informed of any attempts to replicate the study, because the other labs will call in and ask questions to find out what was left out. This lets the guy who signed the paper know who is working in the same field and can decide whether to be helpful or antagonistic.
2) Fiction. "Publish or perish! " "No one actually reads the papers!" "Everyone else is too busy writing their own papers to even look at replicating the experiment, who cares if it doesn't actually work?" And other little labor-saving excuses that show scientists are just as dishonest and self-serving as politicians.
From the article, it seems like people are trying to write things in a way to make them prettier... and less accurate. Quote: "The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results. "
This is slightly on topic... take the wording from wikipedia that seems to be designed to appeal to the masses and probably has misinformation (looks like big pharmacy got their hands in this entry, phobia of skin thinning is mostly unfounded?) and then the words from an Indian dermatology website with lots of actual biology verbiage and sure seems to support the fact that steroid use for your skin is bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Indian Journal of Dermatology:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Random thing I found about scientists having problems with bad wikipedia entries:
http://www.raysahelian.com/wik...
If they have trouble reproducing studies maybe they need to go back to science school. Or look up "science" on wikipedia and do more learning.
The controlled, careful experiments which prove anthropogenic global warming are easily reproducible and their results incontrovertible. These experiments are real, really exist, completely account for every single relevant confounding factor in rigorous detail, and have been reproduced under identical conditions time and time again. That anthropogenic global warming is a fact on the same level of the facts that all effects have caused, or that true is a tautology and false a contradiction.
In the experimental protocols listed in a paper, it is not unusual to have a method's section that is more or less an executive summary rather than a very detailed account of the underlying protocol. This is for two reasons: to great a level of detail leads to a methods section as big as the publication that the paper appears in, and second because many protocols more or less boil down to using a particular series kit or out-sourced lab service. Most journals require data supplements where an author must share their datasets in electronic form as an online addendum to the publication. I would support a similar requirement for a long-form protocol for reproduction of the study.
That said, some protocols necessarily take a lot of money, special equipment, a carefully selected population of volunteers, and time. Reproducing some studies can be outright impractical.
In computational biology and other computational extensions of the physical science, the reproducibility basically comes in the form of requirements to provide the software and raw data for a study. It's easy for the individual that compiles this information to verify that they get the same result as the one they report in the article. The concern there boils down to the provenance of the source data, which may be from registries, public data sets, or some combination of public and private data.
getting the results you need means you can push a drug through trials and make a lot of money
if you hurt or kill someone it won't happen for 20-30 years and by that time you will be retired and the person in charge at the time will be legally responsible while you chill in your nice house
... and forces an ultra-competitive dog-eat-dog publish-or-perish atmosphere, *and* is a market-driven debt-creating profit-centered business, *and* creates unhealthy work environments, *and* legitimizes ultra-left-wing nonsense...
Why is university so lauded these days?
You forgot the greatest food toxin of them all: sugar.
Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments...
Well, damn, that's a rather huge issue. I wonder what the motivator would be to create experiments of questionable validity in the first place?
...which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies...
Ah, there's the trillion-dollar answer. I see Greed N. Corruption is still in charge...
That is how science works. Replicate, or it isn't true as presented.
The authors should have done it themselves before publication
In the rush to "publish or perish," you don't have time to re-run your experiment.
A "solution" would be "split publication" - publish results after the first experiment but call it "unverified." Then when you or another researcher reproduces the experiment, publish again.
The first researcher would receive the primary "credit" but only if the results held up under scrutiny.
Over time, researchers who accumulated a lot of "un-verified" initial publications would see their reputations suffer.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If they have trouble reproducing studies maybe they need to go back to science school. Or look up "science" on wikipedia and do more learning.
Ah, because there's no way in hell that the initial experiments could have been fabricated to favor certain outcomes, especially within the trillion-dollar Cancer Treatment Complex, right?
Yeah, you're right. Over 65% of trained researchers must be stupid or something...
Scientists are not rewarded for reproducing/debunking previous work. You can't easily get it published, because it is not regarded as new. Honestly, I think grad student projects should be almost entirely reproducing other results. It would insure that every important result is reproduced, and increase the emphasis of doing the science correctly rather than finding some novel result (which is usually a 2 sigma result which again can't be reproduced).
I don't know about you, but mercury is in my food because of anthropogenic global change - in my case caused by the "forty-niners" (not the second rate American football team but the 1849 California gold rush miners) indiscriminately using and disposing of mercury in the environment.
What? A failure rate of 2/3 is unbeatable? Shouldn't 2+2=5, which has a failure rate of 100%, be further from the truth?
This is medical research, not science. Medicine uses science because often the best way to cure something is to understand it but, very importantly, it has a very different motivation to science. Finding a "magic" pill which cures disease X without side effects but whose mechanism is completely unknown is great medicine but appalling science. Science is all about understanding how things work, medicine is all about treating human ailments.
This leads to a different approach using the tools of science. Medical researchers tend to focus far more on correlation over causation because that is what is most important to this. Unfortunately this approach leaves them open to random statistical effects which require a very good understanding of statistics to avoid and even then it can still be very easy to fool yourself e.g. the Monty Hall effect.
So lets call this problem what it is: a problem with medical research.
That's a very misleading headline. Since 'more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments' perhaps a more accurate headline would be 'Most Scientists Haven't Been Able to Replicate at Least One Study by their Peers'. While I have occasionally had difficulty in replicating experiments (and so fall into the category of 'Most Scientists') this didn't make me feel that science is in a 'crisis'. Plus, as anyone who cooks will know, simply following the recipe doesn't always guarantee good results - some experiments may require a certain degree of skill (manual dexterity, etc.) to perform, some may fail to clarify leave important points unsaid. These are problems of course, but it's not exactly the same as the 'Science in crisis' viewpoint or the massive intentional fraud implications that the summary seems to be pushing. On the other hand, it does seem to focus on biomedical studies while I am at the harder end of the scientific spectrum so YMMV.
The human body is the most complex organism in the known universe so there's nothing to be sneezed at or be surprised by. For instance recent studies have shown that for a lot of people placebo works even when people have a perfect knowledge that they are given placebo.
As another confirmation, the brain has the ability to directly change/affect the chemical processes in the body as demonstrated by Wim Hof who can manage his body's temperature at will.
These gentle souls simply self identify as "leading scientists" and are expressing their fwheelengs through their dedication to "science". They are entitled to their own reality (i.e. "settle the science"), and if you disagree, you are a denier scienceaphobe h8'er who should be restrained against speaking. I personally self identify as Marie Currie as she wore some dead sexy dresses and was way ahead of her time. Now where's my grant? I have some shrimp and a treadmill all ready to go.
For a different view:
Science Isn't Broken (It’s just a hell of a lot harder than we give it credit for.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
If I were publishing a paper on something that could lead to a serious pile of greenbacks, you can be damn sure my paper is going to exclude some details that would prevent others from monetizing off of my work...
After all, science these days is not solely for the pursuit of truth and knowledge. Research is bought and paid for, and like any venture capital, the investments are expected to pay off.
When using Scientist as in medicine, please use quotes.
It's not heresy if the science is sound. Simply questioning isn't valid, though.
Questioning, of course, is always valid. But "questioning" is useless when the questioner has no interest in listening to anybody answering the question.
Far too much of the "questioning" about climate science is from people who have no interest in any of the science, the measurements, or the data, and won't bother to learn anything about it.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Can two thirds of the results not be reproduced? That is a huge problem with our academic credibility and what we consider science.
Can two thirds of the scientists not reproduce results? That's a huge problem with our academic standards and what we consider scientists.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In fairness, if I found out that teh guvmnt was putting significant quantities of sugar in my water I'd be a little upset too. It would certainly make washing up more challenging.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Many studies have been done on anthropic climate change, but almost no experiments.
There's one rather large experiment going on right now. Unfortunately we're all inside the test tube. So far it's turning out more or less how we expected.
Thanks for posting this. The press should really make an effort to separate the "eggs are good/bad for you" studies from everything else that is indeed very well proven...such as relativity and quantum physics which are the foundation of our daily lives. Its one thing to prove an equation that can help design a device that will either work or not. Its an entirely different thing to prove the effects of a complex substance on a system made of billions of separate living entities who's interactions are not fully understood*.
*climate science does not fall into this category. Although it is a large system, we understand the physics and can precisely measure and predict large scale changes very well. Existing climate models are generally conservative, correct and also predict the situations on Mars and Venus.
If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Then if you succeed, try try again. Carry on until you have constructed a body of results you can evaluate as a whole.
There is a reproducibility problem for who have a model of the universe that works like this: If A is true, then investigation will uncover evidence supporting A, and no evidence supporting not-A. If this is your world view, then the instant you have any contradictory data you have a worldview crisis.
It is perfectly normal for science to yield contradictory results. That's why when you see a study reported saying taking Garcina Cambogia yields astonishing weight loss results you don't immediately run out to the health food store to buy miracle pills. It's absolutely routine for results like this not to stand up. The problem is that journalists are too ignorant of how science works to understand this.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Oh my god that's terrible! (Reads article.) Oh, you mean biology and psychology. I thought you were talking about real science. /Physicist
Consensus is about acceptance of theory and is highly interpretive. Reproducing a study is just a question of whether you get the same data when following the same procedure. Most scientific disagreement is not over such facts, but over what they mean, and perhaps whether the procedure itself is flawed in some way that invalidates the supposedly meaningful results.
While reproducibility is an important aspect of science (though difficult for practical reasons and often taken on faith until fraud is reasonably suspected), consensus should only matter within a particular research program - anything more can lead to group think and academic stagnation, with important avenues of research being left unexplored. So I don't think it is a double standard to hold scientists accountable to two different aspects of scientific behavior.
Certainly seems like a lot of people were faking results and probably weren't even doing research.
The title of this article does an extreme disservice to the scientific community at large. This article is referring to medical research, not to scientific research in general. Creating a sweeping generalization in a title is misleading to the general public and gives the impression that most scientific research is flawed. This type of attention grabbing headline on Slashdot is shameful.
When instrument calibration is examined and bad data thrown out, the researcher involved is accused of manipulation of the data to suit nefarious ends.
If you are unable to reproduce the results of a certain study, it appears to me that there may just not be enough knowledge of all the factors that affect the end result. For example, if you study something believing the main factors that determine the outcome are 'A', 'B', and 'C', but do not have the insight (yet) that factor 'D' is also very influential, then factor 'D' may have value '1' for the original study but value '2' for the reproduction study, influencing the end result and resulting in the different outcomes. This does not mean that the 'scientific method' is incorrect, or that the research was 'fake' or 'sloppy'. It just means that more research is needed, to determine those missing factors that determine the results, leading to (more) accurate and reproducible studies.
Yet another nail in the coffin for Intellectual property. Missionary_Church_of_Kopimism
Science has been infiltrated by assholes who are more in love with themselves that with science.
A lot of times stuff is not replicatable (suck it spellchecker, i just invented the word) because it's fucking difficult. I mean I have spent thousands of dollars and even worse wasted many hours in the lab on getting something I thought should be straightforward, obvious, and simple to work. Sometimes you want things to work so badly, you might even see things (usually fluorescence) where there is none. It's like how Percival Lowell saw canals on Mars. As a scientist you have to fight hard against your own bias, and not take it personally when someone attacks your work. Biological systems are unreliable (or not easily modeled), it's not like a computer program where everything follows a known deterministic path. In biology, the conditions in which something happens may not be known. It may work in one lab because they are using a reagent with a trace contaminant of salt whereas in another it won't work because the conditions are too pure.
So anyway, I reckon we have 3 reasons why studies are not reproducible (here they are in order of unethicalness/immorality):
1. The actual conditions are not what the researcher thinks it is. (The reagent constituents are not normal for example).
2. The researcher wants to believe a result so badly that they see an effect that doesn't exist. (Nowadays you have to photograph your results and/or use software, so this *should* get caught in peer review).
3. The research was published due to pressure to get grants combined with confidence that a particular hypothesis is real and should work -- in spite of lab failure (which the researcher ignores, telling themselves somebody in their lab made a "pipetting error").
Obviously, #3 is the most evil of the above. None of these are an excuse for publishing bad science. In terms of mitigating effects, #1 is the hardest to avoid. #3 should be very avoidable if you have scruples.
Most published papers are so condensed with so many steps in the process brushed over it is not straight forward to actually recreate it. The devil is in the details is the apt description of the process of actually implementing something. Insignificant details which are not important in describing the concepts and results can be essential for implementation. Sometimes luck, skill and sometimes there is a bit of trial of and error which does not get described. Sure, there is an assumption of skill level but even so, it can waste plenty of time and introduce errors in the process. I'm not saying it should be like software; however, software always reproduces results (including the bugs.) To be fair, software runs on machines, not humans.
Journals are no longer printed and distributed. We shouldn't be trying to condense so much to save space (still being concise is important.)
I'm just bringing up another issue. Also, simplistic idiotic metrics applied to publishing does not promote quality work. Quantity is rewarded and how many times it is cited. This promotes vague conceptual work that is more broadly applicable.
We should have well edited larger summaries; followed by longer more detailed procedures. Since almost nobody will recreate, the summaries will likely be used most and then a quick skimming of parts of the details... it's that skimming part that is probably why the details are condensed so much. Even two experts will differ slightly on how they condense the details... look at how much variation we have in textbooks describing in detail the SAME information.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
.. that America's Test Kitchen is more scientifically accurate than our laboratories?
The commodification of science has crippled science, in my opinion. Scientists are forced to publish for a number of reasons; their publications are the basis for subscription services to various journal services, it helps establish their reputation in their corner of academia and contributes to padding their CV, etc. However, it's a horrificially broken idea.
We should be promoting *robust* science, not just *prolific* authorship.
I deal with peer review every day in my job, and it's not what people think it is. It's little more than a third party looking over a manuscript deciding that it looks sufficient to publish (i..e., no *glaring* errors that stand out). There's no fact-checking of equations, methodologies, etc. If any methodology geets through this phase without being confirmed, it's going to make it to publication and exacerbate the problem.
However, this does open a market for robust academic experimentation, but at a certain financial and temporal cost: establish a journal where studies submitted *have* been replicated. Take peer review up a notch to *peer replication*.
Sadly, this will play right into the hands of the Trumpanzees.
"So is the BSD licence even more 'free' (than GPLv2)? Yes. Unquestionably." --Linus Torvalds (TinyURL.com/2vugzl)
and doesn't need no stinking experiments.
"You didn't use the right technique" is the first excuse used by researchers when their results don't hold up.
In Bio science this reproducibility problem is, at heart, a problem with having an experimental system that is under control, well defined and "stable".
There are plenty of very precise measurements made that are not accurate because there is something about the experiment that is not under control.
In biology, even if you do your best to account for statistical variation, it can often be the case that your results are bunk because there are things going on beyond your ken.
This is a real problem, people are now taking it seriously. It has impacted on my life in science on numerous occasions. I don't start something based on others' work unless I've tested the underlying rationale.
The infrared absorption of carbon dioxide is experimentally measured in the laboratory
No one rational doubts this. That has never been what the climate change debate was about. .
You're right. The climate change debate has never been about the measurements; it was never about the science in the first place. It has always been about fossil fuel companies working very effectively to spread uncertainty and doubt in order to protect their profits.
That must be nice to know for people who live in sealed transparent tanks of air.
On a global scale, of course, we do live in a sealed transparent tank of air, in which sunlight is the input energy source and infrared radiation is the output.
Name one study offering a credible alternative explanation for observed phenomena.
What observed phenomena?
This, for a start: http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-co... . On the subject of replication, note that this image graphs results from four different research groups.
Here is the fit of theory to experiment:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-co...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
There is an opportunity here for the "Journal of Reproduced Results" dedicated to research reports that attempted to duplicate the results reported in other Journals.
97 percent of scientists are bogus....
Honestly? In my experience, this is more a result of materials sections in papers being incomplete than it is evidence of poor science. Oftentimes, procedures just aren't described in enough detail to repeat something unless you already know how to do it, and even then, small differences in the way you do things can add up. Journals need to raise the word limit on materials and methods sections, because those are usually too low.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Are you suggesting that the scientific fields are just as full of political motivation, need for personal gain, fear of embarrassment, unwillingness to admit when wrong, and truth-stretching/outright lying as every other field of work in which humans take part? And that this means that the information that they come up with should not be trusted by default? Hogwash! It can't be so!
------------------
0.5 0.91
0.2 0.80
0.1 0.67
0.05 0.50
0.01 0.16
0.001 0.02
Its Most 'Scientists' Can't Replicate Studies By Their Peers
I was unable to reproduce the results from this study.
Which part of the phrase "observed phenomena" are you having problems with? It's right there in the subject line, not to mention in the quoted text.
Science is about making observations.
Here's a more deeply thought-out perspective from a respected biologist (and one of my professors). He discusses a similar reproducibility study done at Amgen. It turns out that the several significant variables were altered in the "reproductions," and some of the experiments weren't successful for unrelated reasons (bad knockdowns). TFA covers a reproducibility study looking at just five papers in one narrow field - then uses this sample to draw broad conclusions about "science" in general. It's about as valid as similar articles making similar statements based on failed reproductions in psychology or sociology.
.:Semper Absurda:.
The notion that "publish or perish" hurts science is apparently widespread, but its misguided. Now, as a researcher, it's tempting to agree in the interest of making my life easier, but the truth is that the need to publish creates an environment in which there is both competition for excellence and a strong incentive to document and share results. The problem isn't "publish or perish" as such, but rather simple inadequacy of funding. Our competitive grant system was intended to fund around 30% of proposals, not the ~5% that receive funding today. We spend a total of just 2.7% of GDP on R&D (public and private), and the highest spender is South Korea at 4.3%. I think these amounts are shockingly low considering the benefits to society.
The result is that instead of competition for excellence, we now have competition because there isn't enough to go around. That leads to an environment where excellence and reproducibility can fall by the wayside in the context of a desperate need for funding. If you think about it, it's clear that publications should be a requirement for continued funding. But every such statement about how science should be funded, and conducted, are predicated on a reasonable proportion of worthy projects receiving funding.
.:Semper Absurda:.
How much of this is related to the fact that the original researchers were pioneers in their field - experts? Either that or their 'discovery' would be of no note.
What makes another scientist capable of exactly reproducing an extremely complicated set of dependent tasks? A set of instructions? Who is to say they can carry this out in the required identical manner?
In reality, the ONLY thing that matters is that the original researcher can reliably recreate the results. The ability of someone ELSE to perform it is subject to far too many untraceable mistakes - not least of all the original discoverer's ability to write papers.
Is this 'reproducability crisis' a result of the original author's error's, or partly to do with the uncertainty inherent with 'reproducing' a set of conditions and causes, accurately?
I am not inferring the motive. I am saying that the person who is accusing the researcher of manipulating the data is also inferring the motive of that researcher is to suit nefarious ends.
I did an experiment where I tried to reproduce the results of others' experiments.
I found that I could not.
Then, I did it again, and found I still could not.
100% reproducible :)
A question I have is whether you are actually interested, or if you merely pretending interest, Indeed, if you're actually interested, there is a lot of work being done in analyzing data and comparing data from different times, which is (as you imply) indeed not always trivial. And there is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" problem for the people doing the actual work, of course, because if they don't correct the data errors, they're criticized for not correcting them, and if they do, they're criticize for "adjusting" the data. They deal with this by being very transparent in how they analyze the data, which is extensively documented.
The first thing to know is not the sensitivity of the thermometer, though; it is the statistics of measurement. I do assume you're aware that a large number of measurements is more precise than a single measurement, right? So the first question you should be asking is, how many measurements are being incorporated into each statistical data point. Ten thousand measurements with a precision of 1 degree, for example, give an average with a precision of 0.01 degrees. Good introductions to statistics of data analysis are available many places, including on the web, for example:
https://www.princeton.edu/~cap/AEESP_Statchap_Peters.pdf or somewhat more detailed,
http://www-library.desy.de/preparch/books/vstatmp_engl.pdf
Moving in to measurements: there are four main institutions that are doing the reconstruction of long-term temperature measurements; most of your questions about thermometry are answered by citations in the references of the papers they publish on their technique. It does take some work to dig down through the references, though. If you want to start, most of the recent papers are online. I would start with the Goddard Institute of Space Studies papers. The full list is here:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov
The two papers you should probably start with are Hansen and Lebedeff 1987,
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00700d.html
and Hansen et al 2010:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00510u.html
If you don't want to dive that deep, there are some review papers that cover most of the material you're interested in. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has a couple of good top-level papers, with an overview:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf
and a paper on data quality:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Station-Quality.pdf
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Not to judge, but it is somewhat funny that you're presenting this as a "Gotcha!" If you would stop pretending your ignorance is just as good as anyone else's knowledge then this will suddenly become a real discussion.
So to answer your question, there are obviously things that happen on Earth which can't be easily replicated in a lab, but the problem is that the H2O-CO2 feedback ls so strong that we need a very large negative feedback to cancel it out. Some massive misunderstanding of the water cycle is pretty much all that would have saved us due to that, but as it happens we've looked at every known atmospheric phenomenon and ruled out any large negative feedbacks.
Global warming is the default, natural reaction of an increase of atmospheric carbon, and we've spent the last 121 years trying to disprove it. We actually thought we had disproved it right up until the mid-1950s. Unfortunately for us all, this really is settled science. What will happen as a result of AGW is a more open question, especially as this will depend on what we choose to do about it, but you really can prove AGW in your basement. Tyndall did it in 1859, you should be able to significantly improve on his results.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
You buy the goose. You subordinate the goose. You beat the goose, You rob the goose. You rape the goose. You pluck the goose. You kill and eat the goose. You replace the goose with people from an area where fake publications are standard. You wonder if the eggs are gold.
As the New Yorker put it, "The Truth Wears Off" (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off).
It's called "effect decline" and it occurs even when scientists try to replicate their own experiments. I asked a friend, a medical researcher, to let me know if the article was describing a real phenomenon. At first he was quite defensive about the integrity of his chosen career. But upon further reflection, he begrudgingly admitted that effect decline was a problem with the scientific method _as practiced_ today.
Sure, just let every researcher have an additional section in the budget for money for reproducing things before publication. Shouldn't be a problem, the man on the street absolutely loves science and is always bugging the government to spend more on it.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
In fairness, if I found out that teh guvmnt was putting significant quantities of sugar in my water I'd be a little upset too. It would certainly make washing up more challenging.
I'd bottle it and sell it.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Why do you have fluoride, glysophate, and mercury in your food and water? Hmm, wonder why these cucks do not want you to know thier science isn't science? its for money and agenda. Surprise!
I was wondering if your post was just a very abridged communication by somebody with something to communicate until the word cuck appeared. Good indicator that it's really just a bunch of content-free verbal behavior using a bunch of shibboleths indicating your fealty to what you consider your tribe, which really none of us care about, thanks. And the word glysophate doesn't help.
Many years a Los Alamos physicist [Reader] told me of reading a peer reviewed paper. The author used the phrase "it follows with a little math that..." This research was right up Reader's alley. It took him over a week to solve it. IIRC, it required a transformation to a non-orthogonal space. Reader cursed the author and his progeny to the 4th generation. When they met again at a conference, Reader told Author, "Oh yeah, I worked through your paper. You used a simple transformation."
There have been numerous cases of scientific discoveries which were reproduced by many investigators and whole scientific models developed which turned out to be entirely imaginary. N-rays are a terrific and lesser known example, but there's also the maps of the Martian Canals, cold fusion, polywater, in addition to the classic fields, still extensively researched vi the scientific method with full faith in the hypothetical reproducibility, such as homeopathy, ESP, magnetic medical therapy, wearing-copper medical therapy, dowsing, witchcraft/spellcasting, ghost/spirit/seances, UFOs, spinal surgery, etc.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
You're confused because you're a dumbass. If you had just said "AGW" like I know you wanted to instead of Galileo, then you would have had the republitard talking point trifecta!
I don't want to hear that bullshit from you. You're one of the worst on here for shouting down opposing viewpoints. Let's get a talk about politics, gayness, abortions, or the existence of god going and you'll crank your derp amplifier up to 11.