Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Isaac King's avatar

An 85% computational reproducibility rate sounds depressingly low to me, I'm flabbergasted that this is presented as "high" in the original paper. Only an 85% chance that your conclusions match the data you collected does not bode well for the overall correctness rate of studies when you take into account data collection issues. In a sane world this would be >99%.

Expand full comment
The Birds 'n' the Bayes's avatar

The comments from Sudhof are just so unfathomably mercenary, I'm a little shocked. As far as I can see, this is still very much in the "okay, could be fraud, could be sloppiness" territory, but the way he's responded makes me suspect fraud much more than I otherwise would.

It's just such a rote, half-assed attempt to play some sort of identity politics card, claiming that having errors pointed out in his team's work is particularly bad for the women in his team, somehow, for no specific reason, then refusing to give any examples of that being the case or provide anything to back that up. It's just a sort of automatic, knee-jerk "oh, I'm under attack, this is, um [spins wheel] sexist - what's that you say - I'm a man - erm I guess it's bad for some women who are involved, no I don't know whom, but, you know demanding data not be faked or contain sloppy errors is, erm, bad for women in some generalised way because, erm, because accuracy and honesty are more male traits or something, as I said you're the sexist here".

It's the laziest attempt to draw some sort of conceptual line between someone criticising him and some bad thing I can remember seeing, and it's just so offensive itself, to just assert as if it's obvious that having scientific standards, expecting errors to be corrected, acting against fraud, is particularly bad for women. This is implicitly a claim that women are less honest and/or more sloppy than men!

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts