Time: 14:00- 15:00 UK time
Across a range of scientific disciplines, concerns have been raised about the reproducibility of research findings. This has generally been considered to be a bad thing.
Certainly, some of the failure to replicate key findings is due to poor experimental design, underpowered experiments and poor reporting of neutral or negative studies or inconvenient outcomes. To the extent that these problems might be addresses, they represent an opportunity for improvement, an opportunity to reduce research waste.
However, in other situations it appears that the failure to replicate may have been due to the influence of some latent nuisance variable, present in one lab but not another, which had a biological effect on the phenomenon being tested. Understanding better the nature of these variables, and how their influence is made manifest, provides opportunities for deeper biological understanding.
Malcolm Macleod will discuss issues of research waste; of replication; and of how these issues might be harnessed to improve research.Malcolm Macleod is a clinician scientist and neurologist who is concerned with how we might increase the value of biomedical research, both through improving the quality of primary research and through better exploitation of what is already known.
This webinar is free to attend.
Registration is now closed.
Time: 14:00- 15:00 UK time
Across a range of scientific disciplines, concerns have been raised about the reproducibility of research findings. This has generally been considered to be a bad thing.
Certainly, some of the failure to replicate key findings is due to poor experimental design, underpowered experiments and poor reporting of neutral or negative studies or inconvenient outcomes. To the extent that these problems might be addresses, they represent an opportunity for improvement, an opportunity to reduce research waste.
However, in other situations it appears that the failure to replicate may have been due to the influence of some latent nuisance variable, present in one lab but not another, which had a biological effect on the phenomenon being tested. Understanding better the nature of these variables, and how their influence is made manifest, provides opportunities for deeper biological understanding.
Malcolm Macleod will discuss issues of research waste; of replication; and of how these issues might be harnessed to improve research.Malcolm Macleod is a clinician scientist and neurologist who is concerned with how we might increase the value of biomedical research, both through improving the quality of primary research and through better exploitation of what is already known.
This webinar is free to attend.
Registration is now closed.
Time: 14:00- 15:00 UK time
Across a range of scientific disciplines, concerns have been raised about the reproducibility of research findings. This has generally been considered to be a bad thing.
Certainly, some of the failure to replicate key findings is due to poor experimental design, underpowered experiments and poor reporting of neutral or negative studies or inconvenient outcomes. To the extent that these problems might be addresses, they represent an opportunity for improvement, an opportunity to reduce research waste.
However, in other situations it appears that the failure to replicate may have been due to the influence of some latent nuisance variable, present in one lab but not another, which had a biological effect on the phenomenon being tested. Understanding better the nature of these variables, and how their influence is made manifest, provides opportunities for deeper biological understanding.
Malcolm Macleod will discuss issues of research waste; of replication; and of how these issues might be harnessed to improve research.Malcolm Macleod is a clinician scientist and neurologist who is concerned with how we might increase the value of biomedical research, both through improving the quality of primary research and through better exploitation of what is already known.
This webinar is free to attend.
Registration is now closed.
Time: 14:00- 15:00 UK time
Across a range of scientific disciplines, concerns have been raised about the reproducibility of research findings. This has generally been considered to be a bad thing.
Certainly, some of the failure to replicate key findings is due to poor experimental design, underpowered experiments and poor reporting of neutral or negative studies or inconvenient outcomes. To the extent that these problems might be addresses, they represent an opportunity for improvement, an opportunity to reduce research waste.
However, in other situations it appears that the failure to replicate may have been due to the influence of some latent nuisance variable, present in one lab but not another, which had a biological effect on the phenomenon being tested. Understanding better the nature of these variables, and how their influence is made manifest, provides opportunities for deeper biological understanding.
Malcolm Macleod will discuss issues of research waste; of replication; and of how these issues might be harnessed to improve research.Malcolm Macleod is a clinician scientist and neurologist who is concerned with how we might increase the value of biomedical research, both through improving the quality of primary research and through better exploitation of what is already known.
This webinar is free to attend.
Registration is now closed.
Time: 14:00- 15:00 UK time
Across a range of scientific disciplines, concerns have been raised about the reproducibility of research findings. This has generally been considered to be a bad thing.
Certainly, some of the failure to replicate key findings is due to poor experimental design, underpowered experiments and poor reporting of neutral or negative studies or inconvenient outcomes. To the extent that these problems might be addresses, they represent an opportunity for improvement, an opportunity to reduce research waste.
However, in other situations it appears that the failure to replicate may have been due to the influence of some latent nuisance variable, present in one lab but not another, which had a biological effect on the phenomenon being tested. Understanding better the nature of these variables, and how their influence is made manifest, provides opportunities for deeper biological understanding.
Malcolm Macleod will discuss issues of research waste; of replication; and of how these issues might be harnessed to improve research.Malcolm Macleod is a clinician scientist and neurologist who is concerned with how we might increase the value of biomedical research, both through improving the quality of primary research and through better exploitation of what is already known.
This webinar is free to attend.
Registration is now closed.
Time: 14:00- 15:00 UK time
Across a range of scientific disciplines, concerns have been raised about the reproducibility of research findings. This has generally been considered to be a bad thing.
Certainly, some of the failure to replicate key findings is due to poor experimental design, underpowered experiments and poor reporting of neutral or negative studies or inconvenient outcomes. To the extent that these problems might be addresses, they represent an opportunity for improvement, an opportunity to reduce research waste.
However, in other situations it appears that the failure to replicate may have been due to the influence of some latent nuisance variable, present in one lab but not another, which had a biological effect on the phenomenon being tested. Understanding better the nature of these variables, and how their influence is made manifest, provides opportunities for deeper biological understanding.
Malcolm Macleod will discuss issues of research waste; of replication; and of how these issues might be harnessed to improve research.Malcolm Macleod is a clinician scientist and neurologist who is concerned with how we might increase the value of biomedical research, both through improving the quality of primary research and through better exploitation of what is already known.
This webinar is free to attend.
Registration is now closed.
