Experimental Planning and Execution

Kevin Mullane*, Michael J. Curtis, Michael Williams

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The lack of reproducibility in biomedical research has been consistently attributed to the misuse of statistics, naïve inference/extrapolation from animal models, and fraud. However, optimization of statistical analysis and caution in interpreting experimental outcomes cannot overcome flaws in experimental design and execution. These include: the absence of a credible hypothesis for running an experiment; clearly defining outcomes before the experiment is run; the use of appropriate controls, randomization of subjects; the validation/authentication of all reagents (compounds, cell lines, animals, antibodies) and equipment; the collection, preservation, and annotation of raw data; and steps to contain or eliminate investigator bias. Collectively these measures will avoid a GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) paradigm that no amount of postexperimental tinkering, including P-hacking, can objectively and legitimately correct. The present chapter addresses measures to facilitate best practices in experimental design and execution that will aid in improving reproducibility.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationResearch in the Biomedical Sciences
Subtitle of host publicationTransparent and Reproducible
PublisherElsevier
Pages67-106
Number of pages40
ISBN (Electronic)9780128047262
ISBN (Print)9780128047255
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 Oct 2017

Keywords

  • Hypothesis generation
  • Investigator bias
  • Randomization
  • Reagent validation/authentication
  • Reproducibility

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Experimental Planning and Execution'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this