-
I’m entering into CSB territory here but this happened when I did a PhD in the early 90s - not a well respected academic but building on the research of a former PhD student even if the key point was only in passing rather than the basis for their thesis.
Try as I might (and factoring in that I was a bit shit), I simply couldn’t replicate the results let alone build on them but this was apparently all down to user error. Which, given the bit shit bit, I kind of accepted.
Anyway, research went nowhere and it was only later that I found out that the key finding that I had been trying to build on was “not readily repeatable”.
Luckily I saw the funny side of things and, arguably as I was sponsored by BP, it was all karma.
EDIT - this was test tubes, pipettes, lab coats and shit
Big_Ted-
Was said PhD student there to teach you at the start? Most scientific methods are written as impenetrably as possible I’ve found.
For instance “ do measuring procedure to this thing” also involves a 4 hr process involving said thing with an improbable homemade piece of measuring apparatus which is never mentioned in paper.
And then people wonder why science isn’t replicable
jupiz
Exactly peer review will only pick up the most blatant fraud as it relies on the presumption that the researcher is acting in good faith
The whole thing can land up being a bit shit though as like so many things status, money and pride corrupt. My friend in his PhD tried to build on the research of a well respected academic but couldn't get the results he was expecting. He engaged the academic on his original work and they were initially helpful but then just went silent. My friend was forced to reproduce the original experiment to figure out where he was going wrong and surprise surprise, couldn't reproduce the results. Contacted the academic and eventually the original journal, both refused to engage, presumably as they would land up with egg on thier faces.