拜耳是另外一个。Amgen只能重复大约 10%，而且他们都联系了原作者讨论实验条件的。

来源: viewfinder 于 2014-10-02 06:41:58 [] [博客] [旧帖] [给我悄悄话] 阅读数 : (764 bytes)
回答: Misinterpreted 由 26484915 于 2014-10-02 06:39:21

In their Comment article 'Raise standards for preclinical cancer research', C. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis (Nature 483, 531–533; 2012) refer to scientists at Amgen who were able to reproduce findings in only 11% of 53 published papers. Several correspondents have asked for details of these studies, which were not provided in the article.

The Amgen scientists approached the papers' original authors to discuss findings and sometimes borrowed materials to repeat the experiments. In some cases, those authors required them to sign an agreement that they would not disclose their findings about specific papers. Begley and Ellis were therefore not free to identify the irreproducible papers — a fact that the Comment should have mentioned.

所有跟帖： 

• Wrong interpretation: they said "could be validated to the point -26484915- ♂ 给 26484915 发送悄悄话 26484915 的博客首页 (40 bytes) () 10/02/2014 postreply 06:44:13

• 说的不是拜耳而是Amgen. “ were able to reproduce findings in only 11% of -viewfinder- ♀ 给 viewfinder 发送悄悄话 viewfinder 的博客首页 (190 bytes) () 10/02/2014 postreply 06:48:56

• Amgen 是这样定义 non-reproduced -26484915- ♂ 给 26484915 发送悄悄话 26484915 的博客首页 (369 bytes) () 10/02/2014 postreply 07:32:03

请您先登陆，再发跟帖！