Posted at 2015.01.31 Category : Washington Post
「再現性」は英語ではReproducibilityというようです。ワシントンポストで研究不正が起こりやすい状況とそれを防ごうとする新しい取り組みを取り上げた記事がありした。日本のあの事件は突発的なものではなく、科学界でありふれた問題が先鋭的なかたちで現れたことがわかります。
Health & Science
The new scientific revolution: Reproducibility at last
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Plus Share via Email More Options
By Joel Achenbach January 27
記事の導入で紹介されていたのは研究不正を行っていたDiederik Stapelというオランダの心理学者でした。このような状況を受けて、データ共有や実験の透明性を高めていこうという取り組みがあるようです。
The Stapel case was an outlier, an extreme example of scientific fraud. But this and several other high-profile cases of misconduct resonated in the scientific community because of a much broader, more pernicious problem: Too often, experimental results can’t be reproduced.
That doesn’t mean the results are fraudulent or even wrong. But in science, a result is supposed to be verifiable by a subsequent experiment. An irreproducible result is inherently squishy.
And so there’s a movement afoot, and building momentum rapidly. Roughly four centuries after the invention of the scientific method, the leaders of the scientific community are recalibrating their requirements, pushing for the sharing of data and greater experimental transparency.
Top-tier journals, such as Science and Nature, have announced new guidelines for the research they publish.
ここでリンクが貼られたのが雑誌Scienceの社説でした。
Science 2 January 2015:
EDITORIAL
Data, eternal
Marcia McNutt
During 2014, Science worked with members of the research community, other publishers, and representatives of funding agencies on many initiatives to increase transparency and promote reproducibility in the published research literature. Those efforts will continue in 2015. Connected to that progress, and an essential element to its success, an additional focus will be on making data more open, easier to access, more discoverable, and more thoroughly documented. My own commitment to these goals is deeply held, for I learned early in my career that interpretations come and go, but data are forever.
ワシントンポストの記事ではデータ共有については製薬会社の試みを紹介しています。
The pharmaceutical companies are part of this movement. Big Pharma has massive amounts of money at stake and wants to see more rigorous pre-clinical results from outside laboratories. The academic laboratories act as lead-generators for companies that make drugs and put them into clinical trials. Too often these leads turn out to be dead ends.
Some pharmaceutical companies are now even willing to share data with each other, a major change in policy in a competitive business.
しかし、記事ではデータ共有だけでは不十分といいます。権威のある雑誌に論文が載ることに重きが置かれている現状では論文掲載のためにデータ操作が行われやすいというのです。
But Ivan Oransky, founder of the blog Retraction Watch, says data-sharing isn’t enough. The incentive structure in science remains a problem, because there is too much emphasis on getting published in top journals, he said. Science is competitive, funding is hard to get and tenure harder, and so even an honest researcher may wind up stretching the data to fit a publishable conclusion.
“Everything in science is based on publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a high-ranking journal. Absolutely everything,” Oransky said. “You want to get a grant, you want to get promoted, you want to get tenure. That’s how you do it. That’s the currency of the realm.”
そこで紹介されているのは再現性を担保してくれる組織Center for Open Science。Youtubeにも動画がありました。
A core scientific principle
Reproducibility is a core scientific principle. A result that can’t be reproduced is not necessarily erroneous: Perhaps there were simply variables in the experiment that no one detected or accounted for. Still, science sets high standards for itself, and if experimental results can’t be reproduced, it’s hard to know what to make of them.
“The whole point of science, the way we know something, is not that I trust Isaac Newton because I think he was a great guy. The whole point is that I can do it myself,” said Brian Nosek, the founder of a start-up in Charlottesville, Va., called the Center for Open Science. “Show me the data, show me the process, show me the method, and then if I want to, I can reproduce it.”
STAP騒動は以下の２パラグラフで触れらていています。
In early 2014, the scientific world was rocked by a tragic case in Japan. A young scientist, Haruko Obokata, claimed to have found evidence for a phenomenon called “STAP,” stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency — a way to manipulate ordinary cells to turn them into stem cells capable of growing into a variety of tissues.
But no one else could reproduce the experiment. An investigation found Obokata guilty of misconduct, and she later resigned from her institute. The journal Nature retracted the STAP papers, and then the case took a horrific turn in August, when Obokata’s mentor, the highly respected scientist Yoshiki Sasai, hanged himself.
オープンで検証可能なプラットフォームを作ること。英語学習、英語試験でもそのような状況が望ましいはずです。過去問や正答率などが自由に閲覧できたらどんなに素晴らしいことか、学習者と教師がどれだけ恩恵にあずかれるか。
ピケティの本もサイトで生データを公開していますよね。彼の結論だけでなく、こういった研究手法も参考にしたいものです。
Health & Science
The new scientific revolution: Reproducibility at last
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Plus Share via Email More Options
By Joel Achenbach January 27
記事の導入で紹介されていたのは研究不正を行っていたDiederik Stapelというオランダの心理学者でした。このような状況を受けて、データ共有や実験の透明性を高めていこうという取り組みがあるようです。
The Stapel case was an outlier, an extreme example of scientific fraud. But this and several other high-profile cases of misconduct resonated in the scientific community because of a much broader, more pernicious problem: Too often, experimental results can’t be reproduced.
That doesn’t mean the results are fraudulent or even wrong. But in science, a result is supposed to be verifiable by a subsequent experiment. An irreproducible result is inherently squishy.
And so there’s a movement afoot, and building momentum rapidly. Roughly four centuries after the invention of the scientific method, the leaders of the scientific community are recalibrating their requirements, pushing for the sharing of data and greater experimental transparency.
Top-tier journals, such as Science and Nature, have announced new guidelines for the research they publish.
ここでリンクが貼られたのが雑誌Scienceの社説でした。
Science 2 January 2015:
EDITORIAL
Data, eternal
Marcia McNutt
During 2014, Science worked with members of the research community, other publishers, and representatives of funding agencies on many initiatives to increase transparency and promote reproducibility in the published research literature. Those efforts will continue in 2015. Connected to that progress, and an essential element to its success, an additional focus will be on making data more open, easier to access, more discoverable, and more thoroughly documented. My own commitment to these goals is deeply held, for I learned early in my career that interpretations come and go, but data are forever.
ワシントンポストの記事ではデータ共有については製薬会社の試みを紹介しています。
The pharmaceutical companies are part of this movement. Big Pharma has massive amounts of money at stake and wants to see more rigorous pre-clinical results from outside laboratories. The academic laboratories act as lead-generators for companies that make drugs and put them into clinical trials. Too often these leads turn out to be dead ends.
Some pharmaceutical companies are now even willing to share data with each other, a major change in policy in a competitive business.
しかし、記事ではデータ共有だけでは不十分といいます。権威のある雑誌に論文が載ることに重きが置かれている現状では論文掲載のためにデータ操作が行われやすいというのです。
But Ivan Oransky, founder of the blog Retraction Watch, says data-sharing isn’t enough. The incentive structure in science remains a problem, because there is too much emphasis on getting published in top journals, he said. Science is competitive, funding is hard to get and tenure harder, and so even an honest researcher may wind up stretching the data to fit a publishable conclusion.
“Everything in science is based on publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a high-ranking journal. Absolutely everything,” Oransky said. “You want to get a grant, you want to get promoted, you want to get tenure. That’s how you do it. That’s the currency of the realm.”
そこで紹介されているのは再現性を担保してくれる組織Center for Open Science。Youtubeにも動画がありました。
A core scientific principle
Reproducibility is a core scientific principle. A result that can’t be reproduced is not necessarily erroneous: Perhaps there were simply variables in the experiment that no one detected or accounted for. Still, science sets high standards for itself, and if experimental results can’t be reproduced, it’s hard to know what to make of them.
“The whole point of science, the way we know something, is not that I trust Isaac Newton because I think he was a great guy. The whole point is that I can do it myself,” said Brian Nosek, the founder of a start-up in Charlottesville, Va., called the Center for Open Science. “Show me the data, show me the process, show me the method, and then if I want to, I can reproduce it.”
STAP騒動は以下の２パラグラフで触れらていています。
In early 2014, the scientific world was rocked by a tragic case in Japan. A young scientist, Haruko Obokata, claimed to have found evidence for a phenomenon called “STAP,” stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency — a way to manipulate ordinary cells to turn them into stem cells capable of growing into a variety of tissues.
But no one else could reproduce the experiment. An investigation found Obokata guilty of misconduct, and she later resigned from her institute. The journal Nature retracted the STAP papers, and then the case took a horrific turn in August, when Obokata’s mentor, the highly respected scientist Yoshiki Sasai, hanged himself.
オープンで検証可能なプラットフォームを作ること。英語学習、英語試験でもそのような状況が望ましいはずです。過去問や正答率などが自由に閲覧できたらどんなに素晴らしいことか、学習者と教師がどれだけ恩恵にあずかれるか。
ピケティの本もサイトで生データを公開していますよね。彼の結論だけでなく、こういった研究手法も参考にしたいものです。
スポンサーサイト
Tracback
この記事にトラックバックする(FC2ブログユーザー)