Do multiple experimenters improve the reproducibility of animal studies?

Vanessa Tabea von Kortzfleisch, Oliver Ambrée, Natasha A Karp, Neele Meyer, Janja Novak, Rupert Palme, Marianna Rosso, Chadi Touma, Hanno Würbel, Sylvia Kaiser, Norbert Sachser and S Helene Richter

PLOS Biology, 2022, vol. 20, issue 5, 1-21

Abstract: The credibility of scientific research has been seriously questioned by the widely claimed “reproducibility crisis”. In light of this crisis, there is a growing awareness that the rigorous standardisation of experimental conditions may contribute to poor reproducibility of animal studies. Instead, systematic heterogenisation has been proposed as a tool to enhance reproducibility, but a real-life test across multiple independent laboratories is still pending. The aim of this study was therefore to test whether heterogenisation of experimental conditions by using multiple experimenters improves the reproducibility of research findings compared to standardised conditions with only one experimenter. To this end, we replicated the same animal experiment in 3 independent laboratories, each employing both a heterogenised and a standardised design. Whereas in the standardised design, all animals were tested by a single experimenter; in the heterogenised design, 3 different experimenters were involved in testing the animals. In contrast to our expectation, the inclusion of multiple experimenters in the heterogenised design did not improve the reproducibility of the results across the 3 laboratories. Interestingly, however, a variance component analysis indicated that the variation introduced by the different experimenters was not as high as the variation introduced by the laboratories, probably explaining why this heterogenisation strategy did not bring the anticipated success. Even more interestingly, for the majority of outcome measures, the remaining residual variation was identified as an important source of variance accounting for 41% (CI95 [34%, 49%]) to 72% (CI95 [58%, 88%]) of the observed total variance. Despite some uncertainty surrounding the estimated numbers, these findings argue for systematically including biological variation rather than eliminating it in animal studies and call for future research on effective improvement strategies.An experimenter heterogenisation was not sufficient to prevent idiosyncratic results in a multi-laboratory setting. Astonishingly, neither the experimenter nor the laboratory accounted for the main portion of the observed variation, but a high amount of residual variation in fact remained unexplained despite strict standardisation regimes.

Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001564 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file ... 01564&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pbio00:3001564

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001564

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS Biology from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosbiology ().