The 2016 GBSI Summit—"Research Reproducibility: Innovative Solutions to Drive Quality" welcomed premiere life science thought leaders, including Arizona State University biomarker researcher Joshua LaBaer, MD, PhD, and science correspondent and moderator Richard Harris (currently on leave from National Public Radio as a visiting scholar this spring at Arizona State University), to explore the driving forces and profound impacts behind the issues.
Finding a relevant reporting guideline for a study can be very difficult. Here we introduce a pilot experiment starting for some of the BMC-series journals which aims to overcome this issue.
Elemental Machines, which develops smart laboratory technology, launched a new suite of tools that that measure environmental variables such as temperature and humidity—both of which are not traditionally accounted for in scientific experiments. By “debugging” the lab environment, the company believes it can improve experimental reproducibility, therefore reducing the time and cost of marketing new drugs and therapies. Elemental Machines recently raised $2.5 million in seed capital to support the development of the new suite of tools, which is called the EM Suite.
Mistakes in peer-reviewed papers are easy to find but hard to fix, report David B. Allison and colleagues: "In the course of assembling weekly lists of articles in our field, we began noticing more peer-reviewed articles containing what we call substantial or invalidating errors. These involve factual mistakes or veer substantially from clearly accepted procedures in ways that, if corrected, might alter a paper's conclusions."
The Summit will also introduce GBSI’s Reproducibility2020, an action plan for the biomedical research community to significantly improve the quality of research by 2020 targeting: 1) improved validation and standardization of biological reagents; 2) better tools and technologies to expand open access for reporting and sharing protocols and data; and 3) increased training that emphasizes rigorous study design and practice.
A talk given by Noam Ross: "Why was, as the title suggests, primarily focused on the benefits of reproducibility to us, and I proceeded from avoiding negatives (risk avoidance) to creating positives (more impact). In How I tried to be very high-level, talking about major concepts in reproducibility, and then talking generally about the tools that I have used for each, emphasizing that they may not be the right tools for everyone. Then we had a discussion about the most promising areas and tools to start with."