Science’s Replication Crisis
Fandagi takrorlash inqirozi
Sarlavha va pastdagi so‘zlarga qarang. Matn nima haqida bo‘lishi mumkin? Bir daqiqa o‘ylab ko‘ring — bu miyani o‘qishga tayyorlaydi.
Ko‘plab mashhur tadqiqot natijalari takrorlanmagani va fan buni qanday tuzatmoqda.
Kalit so‘zlar
Bu so‘zlar matnda uchraydi va matnda ajratib ko‘rsatiladi. Bosing — talaffuzini eshitasiz.
⏱ O‘qish boshlanganda vaqt o‘lchanadi — oxirida tezligingizni ko‘rasiz.
👆 Istalgan so‘zni bosing — tarjimasi yoki lug‘atga havola chiqadi.
Replication, the ability of independent researchers to reproduce a result, is a cornerstone of the scientific method. It was therefore alarming when, in 2015, a large collaborative project attempted to repeat 100 studies published in leading psychology journals and succeeded in only about 36 percent of cases.
Takrorlanuvchanlik — mustaqil tadqiqotchilarning natijani qayta hosil qila olishi — ilmiy usulning tamal toshidir. Shuning uchun 2015-yilda yirik hamkorlikdagi loyiha yetakchi psixologiya jurnallarida chop etilgan 100 ta tadqiqotni takrorlashga urinib, atigi 36 foizga yaqin holatda muvaffaqiyatga erishgani xavotirli edi.
Subsequent efforts revealed similar problems in medicine, economics and other fields. Several famous findings, including some that had become staples of popular science books and corporate training, proved far weaker than originally claimed or failed to replicate entirely.
Keyingi urinishlar tibbiyot, iqtisodiyot va boshqa sohalarda ham shunga o‘xshash muammolarni ochib berdi. Bir qancha mashhur natijalar, jumladan ommabop ilmiy kitoblar va korporativ treninglarning asosiy qismiga aylanganlari, dastlab da’vo qilinganidan ancha zaif bo‘lib chiqdi yoki umuman takrorlanmadi.
The causes are largely structural rather than a matter of deliberate fraud. Journals have historically favoured novel, positive results, while studies that find nothing often go unpublished. Small sample sizes produce unstable findings, and researchers, consciously or not, may try multiple analyses until one yields a “statistically significant” result, a practice known as p-hacking.
Sabablar ataylab qilingan firibgarlikdan ko‘ra asosan tizimli. Jurnallar tarixan yangi, ijobiy natijalarni afzal ko‘rgan, hech narsa topmagan tadqiqotlar esa ko‘pincha chop etilmay qolgan. Kichik tanlanmalar beqaror natijalar beradi va tadqiqotchilar ongli yoki ongsiz ravishda biri “statistik ahamiyatli” natija bermaguncha bir nechta tahlilni sinab ko‘rishlari mumkin — bu amaliyot p-hacking deb ataladi.
Encouragingly, the crisis has prompted reform. Pre-registration, in which researchers publicly specify their hypotheses and methods before collecting data, makes p-hacking far harder. Larger collaborative studies, open sharing of data and journals that accept papers based on methods rather than results are increasingly common. Paradoxically, the crisis may demonstrate science’s strength: it is, after all, a self-correcting enterprise.
Quvonarlisi, inqiroz islohotlarga turtki berdi. Tadqiqotchilar ma’lumot yig‘ishdan oldin farazlari va usullarini ochiq e’lon qiladigan oldindan ro‘yxatdan o‘tkazish p-hacking‘ni ancha qiyinlashtiradi. Kattaroq hamkorlikdagi tadqiqotlar, ma’lumotlarni ochiq almashish va maqolalarni natijalarga emas, usullarga qarab qabul qiladigan jurnallar tobora keng tarqalmoqda. Paradoksal ravishda, inqiroz fanning kuchini namoyish etishi mumkin: axir u o‘zini o‘zi tuzatadigan faoliyat.
Incentives within academia contribute to the problem. Researchers’ careers depend heavily on publishing frequently in prestigious journals, and replication studies, which merely confirm or challenge existing findings, have traditionally carried little prestige. A young scientist who spends two years carefully repeating someone else’s experiment may find it harder to secure a permanent position than one who produces a series of striking new results.
Akademik muhitdagi rag‘batlar muammoga hissa qo‘shadi. Tadqiqotchilarning martabasi nufuzli jurnallarda tez-tez chop etilishga kuchli bog‘liq, mavjud natijalarni shunchaki tasdiqlaydigan yoki shubha ostiga qo‘yadigan takrorlash tadqiqotlari esa an’anaviy ravishda kam obro‘ keltirgan. Ikki yilni boshqa birovning tajribasini sinchkovlik bilan takrorlashga sarflagan yosh olimga bir qator hayratlanarli yangi natijalar chiqargan olimga qaraganda doimiy lavozim olish qiyinroq bo‘lishi mumkin.
The crisis also carries lessons for the public. A single study, however surprising, should be treated as provisional until it has been confirmed by others. Headlines announcing that a food causes or prevents cancer are frequently based on small, unreplicated studies, and readers would do well to ask how large the sample was and whether the result has been repeated.
Inqiroz jamoatchilik uchun ham saboqlarga ega. Bitta tadqiqot, qanchalik hayratlanarli bo‘lmasin, boshqalar tomonidan tasdiqlanmaguncha vaqtinchalik deb qaralishi kerak. Biror oziq-ovqat saraton keltirib chiqaradi yoki oldini oladi degan sarlavhalar ko‘pincha kichik, takrorlanmagan tadqiqotlarga asoslanadi va o‘quvchilar tanlanma qanchalik katta bo‘lganini va natija takrorlanganmi-yo‘qligini so‘rashlari foydali bo‘lardi.
Tushundingizmi?
Javob topa olmasangiz, «O‘qish» bosqichiga qaytib, matnga qarang — bu ham mashq.
-
Asosiy g‘oya
1 What is the main idea of the article?
-
2 What percentage of the 100 psychology studies were successfully replicated?
-
3 What is “p-hacking”?
-
4 Why does the writer suggest the crisis may show science’s strength?
True / False / Not Given
True — matnda aynan shunday deyilgan. False — matn aksini aytadi. Not Given — matnda bu haqda ma’lumot yo‘q.
-
1 Replication studies have traditionally brought researchers little prestige.
-
2 The writer says a single surprising study should be accepted as proven.
-
3 The writer says the main cause is deliberate fraud.
-
4 Pre-registration makes p-hacking harder.
-
5 The 2015 project was funded by a government.
-
6 Medical studies replicate more often than psychology studies.
So‘zni ma’nosi bilan juftlang
Chapdan so‘zni, o‘ngdan uning ma’nosini tanlang. Hammasi juftlansa, natija chiqadi.