拜耳是另外一個。Amgen隻能重複大約 10%,而且他們都聯係了原作者討論實驗條件的。

來源: viewfinder 2014-10-02 06:41:58 [] [博客] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (764 bytes)
回答: Misinterpreted264849152014-10-02 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- 給 26484915 發送悄悄話 26484915 的博客首頁 (40 bytes) () 10/02/2014 postreply 06:44:13

說的不是拜耳而是Amgen. “ were able to reproduce findings in only 11% of -viewfinder- 給 viewfinder 發送悄悄話 viewfinder 的博客首頁 (190 bytes) () 10/02/2014 postreply 06:48:56

Amgen 是這樣定義 non-reproduced -26484915- 給 26484915 發送悄悄話 26484915 的博客首頁 (369 bytes) () 10/02/2014 postreply 07:32:03

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”