Reproducibility of results in preclinical studies: a perspective from the bone field

Abstract

The biomedical research enterprise-and the public support for it-is predicated on the belief that discoveries and the conclusions drawn from them can be trusted to build a body of knowledge which will be used to improve human health. As in all other areas of scientific inquiry, knowledge and understanding grow by layering new discoveries upon earlier ones. The process self-corrects and distills knowledge by discarding false ideas and unsubstantiated claims. Although self-correction is inexorable in the long-term, in recent years biomedical scientists and the public alike have become alarmed and deeply troubled by the fact that many published results cannot be reproduced. The chorus of concern reached a high pitch with a recent commentary from the NIH Director, Francis S. Collins, and Principal Deputy Director, Lawrence A. Tabak, and their announcement of specific plans to enhance reproducibility of preclinical research that relies on animal models. In this invited perspective, we highlight the magnitude of the problem across biomedical fields and address the relevance of these concerns to the field of bone and mineral metabolism. We also suggest how our specialty journals, our scientific organizations, and our community of bone and mineral researchers can help to overcome this troubling trend.

Keywords: BONE HISTOMORPHOMETRY; Bone QCT/microCT; GENETIC ANIMAL MODELS.

Fig. 1

The limited relevance of p values in the face of implausible hypotheses. Reproduced from Nuzzo R., Nature. 2014; 506:150–2.