I actually found more detail was published over the summer.[1] It sounds like getting the necessary information for the replications was surprisingly difficult and this drained the funds. Also, people are leaving the project because they deem the papers too flawed to be worth replicating. This makes it sound like it&#x27;s turning into a fiasco. Universities putting up legal obstacles to replications, etc:<p>&quot;Early on, Begley, who had raised some of the initial objections about irreproducible papers, became disenchanted. He says some of the papers chosen have such serious flaws, such as a lack of appropriate controls, that attempting to replicate them is “a complete waste of time.” He stepped down from the project&#x27;s advisory board last year.<p>Amassing all the information needed to replicate an experiment and even figure out how many animals to use proved “more complex and time-consuming than we ever imagined,” Iorns says. Principal investigators had to dig up notebooks and raw data files and track down long-gone postdocs and graduate students, and the project became mired in working out material transfer agreements with universities to share plasmids, cell lines, and mice.<p>[...]<p>ALTHOUGH ERRINGTON SAYS many labs have been “excited” and happy to participate, that is not what Science learned in interviews with about one-fourth of the principal investigators on the 50 papers. Many say the project has been a significant intrusion on their lab&#x27;s time—typically 20, 30, or more emails over many months and the equivalent of up to 2 weeks of full-time work by a graduate student to fill in protocol details and get information from collaborators. Errington concedes that a few groups have balked and stopped communicating, at least temporarily.&quot; [1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencemag.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;348&#x2F;6242&#x2F;1411" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencemag.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;348&#x2F;6242&#x2F;1411</a>