Should We Strive to Make Science Bias-Free? A Philosophical Assessment of the Reproducibility Crisis

Improvement of bioanalytical parameters through automation: suitability of a hand-like robotic system

Commercial automation systems for small- and medium-sized laboratories, including research environments, are often complex to use. For liquid handling systems (LHS), development is required not only for the robot's movements but also for adapting the bioanalytical method to the automated system. This study investigates whether a more human-like automation strategy-using a robotic system (RS)-is more suitable for research laboratories than a professional automation approach utilizing a commercial automated LHS. We conducted a series of measurements for protein determination using a Bradford assay manually, with a fully automated LHS, and with our human-like RS. Although the hand-like RS approach requires more than twice the time of the LHS, it achieved the best standard deviation in this setup (RS = 0.5, manual = 0.71, LHS = 0.86). Due to the low limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ), most protein samples could be quantified with the RS (samples below LOQ = 9.7%, LOD = 0.23; LOQ = 0.25) compared to manual (samples below LOQ = 28.8%, LOD = 0.24; LOQ = 0.26) and the LHS (samples below LOQ = 36.1%, LOD = 0.27; LOQ = 0.31). In another time-dependent enzymatic assay test, the RS achieved results comparable to the manual method and the LHS, although the required time could be a constraint for short incubation times. Our results demonstrate that a more hand-like automation system closely models the manual process, leading easier to accurate bioanalytical results. We conclude that such a system could be more suitable for typical research environments than a complex LHS.

Reproducibility and Scientific Integrity of Big Data Research in Urban Public Health and Digital Epidemiology: A Call to Action

The emergence of big data science presents a unique opportunity to improve public-health research practices. Because working with big data is inherently complex, big data research must be clear and transparent to avoid reproducibility issues and positively impact population health. Timely implementation of solution-focused approaches is critical as new data sources and methods take root in public-health research, including urban public health and digital epidemiology. This commentary highlights methodological and analytic approaches that can reduce research waste and improve the reproducibility and replicability of big data research in public health. The recommendations described in this commentary, including a focus on practices, publication norms, and education, are neither exhaustive nor unique to big data, but, nonetheless, implementing them can broadly improve public-health research. Clearly defined and openly shared guidelines will not only improve the quality of current research practices but also initiate change at multiple levels: the individual level, the institutional level, and the international level.

Rebuttal to Douglas and Elliott

In "Should We Strive to Make Science Bias‑Free? A Philosophical Assessment of the Reproducibility Crisis", I argue that the problem of bias in science, a key factor in the current reproducibility crisis, is worsened if we follow Heather Douglas and Kevin C. Elliott's advice and introduce non-epistemic values into the evidential assessment of scientific hypotheses. In their response to my paper, Douglas and Elliott complain that I misrepresent their views and fall victim to various confusions. In this rebuttal I argue, by means of an examination of their published views, that my initial interpretation of their work is accurate and that, in their hands, science is generally prone to deviations from truth.