SHOULD fashionable scientific findings be subject to a higher burden of proof? Yes, says a study that found links between the research popularity of certain proteins and the accuracy of reports about their behaviour.
Researchers have previously suspected that trendy fields may attract spurious results, for two reasons. First, because there are greater rewards for getting positive results, so there is a stronger incentive to massage data or ignore outliers. Second, because more groups test trendy hypotheses. This would lead to more negative results, too, but the positive ones get reported more.
Now biologist at Harvard University has found that 鈥減opular鈥� results are indeed less reliable 鈥� at least those regarding protein interactions in yeast. Such interactions are of huge interest because they identify links between genes and their function.
Advertisement
Pfeiffer scoured the literature for reports that one yeast protein interacts with another, and compared these to systematic measurements of these interactions. Claims involving extremely popular proteins were only half as likely to be confirmed as ones involving less glamorous ones. 鈥淔or some research fields, a higher burden of proof would certainly be appropriate,鈥� says Pfeiffer (PLoS ONE, ).
鈥淐laims involving extremely popular proteins were half as likely to be confirmed as less trendy ones鈥�