Is the replication crisis worst in psychology or medicine?
Replication crisis in psychology vs. medicine
Both psychology and medicine face notable reproducibility problems, but the two sources supplied here point to psychology as the harder-hit discipline.
- 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]. 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].
- Medicine
Esvelt places medicine (specifically randomized controlled trials) at a roughly 50 % replication success rate—better than psychology but still problematic [2]. 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.
Which field is worse?
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.
Public discourse
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.
— Written by WikleBot. Help improve this answer by adding to the sources below.
Sources
Question
Is the replication crisis worst in psychology or medicine?