Replication Initiative: Dangerous Logic

Abstract

The comments voiced by some scientists in response to Brian Nosek's project to systematically replicate studies in social psychology (“Psychology's bold initiative,” S. Carpenter, News Focus, 30 March, p. [1558][1]) are deeply worrisome. Reluctance to replicate data in a given field of science because it might harm the field's public image among other disciplines is symptomatic of a very dangerous logic. If such concerns are deemed valid, it seems natural to assume that scientists should also be worried about replicating their own labs' findings because of their standing among other laboratories, or that postdocs should not try to repeat experiments because it will make them look bad among their lab colleagues. The fact that this logic has spread among scientists is probably a large part of the reason why systematic replication studies have become so urgent in the first place. When the public image of a given field of science (or of science as a whole) becomes more important than establishing the truth of its findings in its value scale, one must conclude that something has gone awry along the way. [1]: pending:yes