Cancer reproducibility effort faces backlash
I can't state how strongly I disagree with the conclusion that papers should be providing excruciating detail about protocol just because "pharmaceutical companies can't reproduce key cancer papers [without the help of the original scientists]". Science has rarely been done like this.<p>It would be like Google complaining that they can't copy psuedocode verbatim out of a paper and have a highly performant algorithm. Or Microsoft complaining that a static analysis defined in a paper wasn't accompanied by a production-ready implementation.<p>Producing protocols that literally anyone could replicate without expending effort is not the business of Science.<p>Replication should focus on the veracity of the underlying truth claim, not the economics of reproducing the results.