>Is it reproducible if the same scientist repeats the >experiment in the same lab and gets the same results? >Because that's the current bar of reproducibility, and that
>89% that is not "reproducible" certainly passed that bar.
I don't follow you here. The above does not seem to be the current meaning of "reproducible":
The same person doing the same experiment is repeatable, not reproducible. And I don't believe even the repeatable bar has been met, as very few projects have funding to do the same experiment twice.
The fact that a given investigator can "repeat" his experiment have very low weight among professional scientists, because we are all human. Irving Langmuir's famous talk about Pathological Science, and especially the sad story of N-rays, is a warning to every scientist.
I don't follow you here. The above does not seem to be the current meaning of "reproducible":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
The same person doing the same experiment is repeatable, not reproducible. And I don't believe even the repeatable bar has been met, as very few projects have funding to do the same experiment twice.
The fact that a given investigator can "repeat" his experiment have very low weight among professional scientists, because we are all human. Irving Langmuir's famous talk about Pathological Science, and especially the sad story of N-rays, is a warning to every scientist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langB.htm#Nrays