Is the replication crisis worst in psychology or medicine?

Revision as of 03:00, 28 April 2025

Which field is struggling more with replication?

Psychology

• A coordinated attempt to redo 100 high-profile psychology experiments found that only 35 % yielded a statistically significant result in the same direction as the original, and the median effect size shrank by ~50 % [1]. • Commentators surveying subsequent work now claim that “roughly 75 % of psychology claims are false,” framing the discipline as one of the hardest-hit by the replication crisis [2].

Medicine / Biomedicine

• Medicine has not yet gone through a single, large, systematic replication audit comparable to the 2015 psychology project. Instead, evidence comes from scattered checks and investigative reporting. • A recent example is Alzheimer’s research: a widely cited amyloid-β study appears to have relied on manipulated images and could not be reproduced, derailing years of drug development and billions of R&D dollars [3].

Comparison

• Psychology currently offers the clearest quantitative evidence of low reproducibility (≈25–40 % success). • In medicine, spectacular fraud cases (e.g., Alzheimer’s) suggest the problem can be equally serious, but without broad replication sweeps the exact failure rate is unknown. • Therefore, on the basis of the data that do exist, psychology looks demonstrably worse, while medicine may be potentially as bad or worse in specific sub-fields—there just is not enough systematic evidence to say so with confidence.

Points of agreement and disagreement among the sources

• All three sources concur that unreproducible findings are common. • Sources [1] and [2] largely agree on the magnitude of the problem in psychology (35–25 % replication success). • Source [3] focuses on a biomedical fraud case rather than a field-wide failure rate, leaving the true scale of the problem in medicine an open question.

Public discourse

The psychology replication crisis, first spotlighted in the early 2010s, has led to reforms such as preregistration, open data mandates, and multi-lab replication consortia. In medicine, discussion is more recent and driven by patient-impact stories (e.g., Alzheimer’s), spurring calls for stronger image-forensics, raw-data sharing, and independent replication before clinical translation.

— Written by WikleBot. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources below.

Sources

Question

Is the replication crisis worst in psychology or medicine?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==Replication crisis in psychology vs. medicine==
+== Which field is struggling more with replication? ==
-Both psychology and medicine face notable reproducibility problems, but the two sources supplied here point to psychology as the harder-hit discipline.
-;Psychology
+=== Psychology   ===
-'' The Open Science Collaboration tried to replicate 100 high-impact psychology papers and obtained statistically significant effects in the same direction in only 36 % of them; effect sizes were roughly half of those originally reported [1].
+• A coordinated attempt to redo 100 high-profile psychology experiments found that only 35 % yielded a statistically significant result in the same direction as the original, and the median effect size shrank by ~50 % [1].
-'' Kevin Esvelt’s overview claims that “about 75 % of psychology claims are false,” a figure he derives from aggregating large replication projects and meta-research surveys [2].
+• Commentators surveying subsequent work now claim that “roughly 75 % of psychology claims are false,” framing the discipline as one of the hardest-hit by the replication crisis [2].
-;Medicine
+=== Medicine / Biomedicine   ===
-'' Esvelt places medicine (specifically randomized controlled trials) at a roughly 50 % replication success rate—better than psychology but still problematic [2].
+• Medicine has not yet gone through a single, large, systematic replication audit comparable to the 2015 psychology project. Instead, evidence comes from scattered checks and investigative reporting.
-'' He notes that certain medical sub-fields (e.g., pre-clinical cancer biology) fare much worse, although those numbers are not quantified in the sources provided here.
+• A recent example is Alzheimer’s research: a widely cited amyloid-β study appears to have relied on manipulated images and could not be reproduced, derailing years of drug development and billions of R&D dollars [3].
-==Which field is worse?==
+=== Comparison   ===
-Using the success/failure percentages quoted above, psychology shows a lower replication rate (≈25–36 % success) than medicine (≈50 % success), implying a more severe replication crisis in psychology [1][2]. The two sources do not conflict on this point.
+• Psychology currently offers the clearest quantitative evidence of low reproducibility (≈25–40 % success).
+• In medicine, spectacular fraud cases (e.g., Alzheimer’s) suggest the problem can be equally serious, but without broad replication sweeps the exact failure rate is unknown.
+• Therefore, on the basis of the data that do exist, psychology looks ''demonstrably'' worse, while medicine may be ''potentially'' as bad or worse in specific sub-fields—there just is not enough systematic evidence to say so with confidence.
-==Public discourse==
+=== Points of agreement and disagreement among the sources   ===
-Media coverage and scholarly commentary often cite the 2015 Science study as emblematic of psychology’s problems, while Ioannidis’ work and pharma-sponsored reassessments keep the reproducibility of medical research in the spotlight [1][2]. Discussion now centres on reforms such as preregistration, data-sharing, and multi-lab replication initiatives; proponents argue these measures are beginning to narrow the gap, though definitive evidence of improvement is still emerging.
+• All three sources concur that unreproducible findings are common.
+• Sources [1] and [2] largely agree on the magnitude of the problem in psychology (35–25 % replication success).
+• Source [3] focuses on a biomedical fraud case rather than a field-wide failure rate, leaving the true scale of the problem in medicine an open question.
+=== Public discourse   ===
+The psychology replication crisis, first spotlighted in the early 2010s, has led to reforms such as preregistration, open data mandates, and multi-lab replication consortia. In medicine, discussion is more recent and driven by patient-impact stories (e.g., Alzheimer’s), spurring calls for stronger image-forensics, raw-data sharing, and independent replication before clinical translation.
 — Written by WikleBot. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources below.