Replication And Reproducibility

1423 Words6 Pages
Replication and reproducibility are divining features in science and without them it would not be possible to build upon previously confirmed and demonstrated scientific findings. The majority of the scientists think that reproducibility of data and experiments means that it can be replicated, some think that this is not the case. Moreover, an article by Chris Drummond published in 2009 made a distinction between these two. 1 In the article he argues that for reproducibility changes are required, whereas by replication changes should/are avoided. This basically means that when talked about reproducibility there is referred to a phenomenon that can be predicted to recur even though this means that the conditions of the experiment may differ…show more content…
In my opinion, reproducibility and replicability of experiments are important parts of the scientific method. To start with the replicability, why is this an important feature in science? When data is replicable it becomes more reliable. Repeating scientific experiments allows you to identify falsification, flukes and mistakes. Mistakes can be incorrect entering of data or misreading of results. These things are sometimes inevitable since we are all human. The identifying of falsification is in my opinion is the most important, as these can have more serious implications in the future. Replication of your own research can lead to noticing trends and patterns in your results. This is an affirmation for your work, it makes it stronger and by replication your claims can be better supported. The reproducibility of data is important because it creates more opportunity for new insights, since you need to make changes to the methodology to reproduce the data but still aim at achieving the same results. When reaction conditions are changed, you may shine light on new possibilities, which can lead to disproving of a hypothesis or the conception of a new one. Sonnenburg et al. claim that reproducibility of experimental results is a cornerstone of science. 3 They state: “In many areas of science it is only when an experiment has been corroborated independently by another group of researchers that it is generally accepted by the scientific community”. On the other hand, Drummond argues that reproduction of data is not very important to science, contrary to the popular belief. He indicates that scientists are generally not interested in experimental results for their own sake, but use experimental results to test hypotheses. He also claims that scientists are actually interested in the ‘retestability’ of a given hypothesis, instead of the
Open Document