Re-blog 6
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/07/replication_controversy_in_psychology_bullying_file_drawer_effect_blog_posts.3.html
In the beginning of the year, ourclass discussed the issues behind experimental replication and the controversythat can come with it. Experimental replication is the act of redoing an experiment done by someone else previously, which can be done with or without consent. The example we used in the beginning of the year was the controversy over the discovery of DNA. Rosalind Franklin originally discovered the double helix structure but had not released any of scientific findings out to the public. When Watson and Crick saw her at a conference talking about her findings they took what they had learned and used it to solve and discover the structure of DNA, and were later awarded a Noble Prize of Physiology or Medicine for contributing to the science world. Rosalind Franklin did not receive anything, although she had first come up with it. Over the past 60 years this debate has stirred up controversy and is still occurring in the science world.
In the article “ Why Psychologists’ Food Fight Matters”, the article describes a similar situation to the one above, except it takes place at a university. Simone Schnall created a study that focused on “the effects of people’s thoughts or feelings of cleanliness on the harshness of their moral judgments”. The study had multiple tests in order to collect a full amount of data for the study. Although the study was unsuccessful Schnall posted her concerns for the experiment not working properly, Michigan State researchers said they would replicate her study; she responded with giving them the materials she used and asked them to look at her procedure and to consider any dilemmas. They told her they would preform an “experimental protocol and statistical analysis”, but she received no further information after that. Once the replicators had finished the experiment she had requested they share the results with her before publishing it, which they did not do. The researchers titled it “Go Big or Go Home” insisting that she did not have a large enough sample size, which is why it had failed. The editors told her that she could not provide any feedback or response since she was the original author. She decided to stand up for herself and publish a response saying that although the replication proved many things and was worth it, it was very wrong of how they went about it. Finally the researchers apologized for what they had done. Experimental replication has become a huge problem due to not giving credit to the original experimenters, who may have some false information in their studies but are still worthy of being cited for what they have done. It has caused many legal issues and is still being talked about as to how this issue can be fixed to make it fair for all.
