Longevity logo

Many cancer studies can't be confirmed in the lab, according to a study.

A worker at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine, handles a laboratory mouse on January 24, 2006. Every year, the facility sends out over two million mice to qualified researchers. A group of researchers started a mission eight years ago to meticulously duplicate significant lab experiments in cancer research. They re-created 50 tests using mice and test tubes, the type of work that leads to novel cancer therapies. They announced the following findings on Tuesday, December 7, 2021: Approximately half of the scientific claims were found to be false. (AP Photo/File/Robert F. Bukaty)

By Prasad Madusanka HerathPublished 2 years ago 3 min read
Like

A group of academics started a mission eight years ago to meticulously duplicate early but crucial lab experiments in cancer research.

They re-created 50 tests using mice and test tubes, the type of basic research that leads to novel cancer medicines. The findings were released on Tuesday, and around half of the scientific claims were found to be false.

"The fact is that we deceive ourselves." Dr. Vinay Prasad, a cancer specialist and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the experiment, stated, "Most of what we claim is innovative or noteworthy isn't."

The strongest discoveries come from studies that can be repeated with identical results, which is a cornerstone of science.

According to Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences, there is little incentive for researchers to publish their techniques and data so that others may check their findings. She claims that if a researcher's findings aren't able to stand up to examination, their reputation suffers.

There are also built-in incentives for sharing discoveries.

However, reading headlines about a mouse research that appears to offer a treatment "just around the corner" might give cancer patients false hope, according to Prasad. "Cancer progress is usually slower than we hope."

The new study focuses on flaws early in the scientific process, rather than on well-established therapies. By the time cancer medications reach the market, they've been thoroughly evaluated in large groups of individuals to ensure that they're both safe and effective.

The researchers attempted to replicate experiments from cancer biology studies published in prominent journals such as Cell, Science, and Nature between 2010 and 2012.

According to the team's report published online Tuesday by eLife, 54 percent of the initial findings failed to meet statistical criteria specified ahead of time by the Reproducibility Project. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which also supports The Associated Press Health and Science Department, funds the charity eLife.

One study that did not stand up was one that established a link between a certain gut bacteria and colon cancer in people. Another was for a medication that reduced the size of breast cancers in mice. A mouse trial of a possible prostate cancer medication was the third.

The research done at Sanford Burnham Prebys research institution, according to a co-author of the prostate cancer study, has stood up to examination.

"Our results have been replicated several times in the (scientific) literature," said Erkki Ruoslahti, who founded a business that is now conducting human studies on the same medication for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

The Reproducibility Project has completed its second major analysis. When they tried to replicate psychological trials in 2015, they ran across similar issues.

It might be inefficient to move on without first repeating findings, according to study co-author Brian Nosek of the Center for Open Science.

"We launch a clinical study, create a new firm, or proclaim to the world, 'We have a solution,' before we've done the follow-up work to prove it," Nosek added.

The researchers aimed to keep the discrepancies in how cancer tests were carried out to a minimum. When they had queries about which mouse strain to use or where to acquire specifically created tumor cells, they couldn't always get answers from the experts who completed the original research.

"I wasn't shocked," said Michael Lauer, deputy director of extramural research at the National Institutes of Health. "However, it is troubling that roughly a third of experts were not helpful, and in some cases, were beyond not helpful."

In 2023, the NIH will strive to promote data sharing among scientists by mandating grant-funded institutions to do so, according to Lauer.

health
Like

About the Creator

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.