This blog is closed to new posts due to inactivity. The post remains here as part of the network’s archive of useful research information. We hope you'll join the conversation by posting to an open topic or starting a new one.
 
The NIH is considering changes to current rules over the independant validation of scientific results. The Bethesda based National Institute of Health has been faced with the task of revamping in house validation rules after a number of reports demonstrated a replication of results as low as 11% in some firms (Amgen, 2012).Much of the issue lies with cost as budgets often do not stretch as far as regulators would ideally prefer and with independant validation costing as much as $25,000 in some cases (Lorns, Science Exchange).Although a study by Science Exchange revealed that - were funding to be made available - a majority of scientists would prefer to have their results independantly verified there is still some opposition within the scientific community to rules dictating requirements for reproducing results. The thought of an external validation process potentially taking years with all of its resultant costs and of course the risk that another group will report similar findings more quickly leaves some scientists sweating.It seems that in view of the substantial hurdles and oppostion to mandatory, independant validation of results, the NIH has its work cut out and must tread a delicate path if it is not to place much valuable and innovative research at risk.Are such reforms necessary or do they impede cutting edge science by restricting the availabilty of funds to only those studies that can demonstrate a high likelihood of clinical trials in the proposal stage, starving those with less clear cut outcomes of funding?
http://www.nature.com/news/nih-mulls-rules-for-validating-key-results-1.13469?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130801