|
|
| | + | =='''[[user:Ajvree|Alina Vreeland]]'''== |
| | + | |
| | + | *'''What were the main issues with the data and analysis identified by Baggerly and Coombs? What best practices enumerated by DataONE were violated? Which of these did Dr. Baggerly claim were common issues?''' |
| | + | Baggerly and Coombs identified the issues of inconsistent data. DataONE touched upon the issue of being diligent in the entry of data into a spreadsheet, and this was obviously violated, since the data was not able to be successfully reproduced by others. |
| | + | |
| | + | *'''What recommendations does Dr. Baggerly recommend for reproducible research? How do these correspond to what DataONE recommends?''' |
| | + | He recommends documentation of all steps and checking labels on every gene, etc, so that your peers can easily follow what you're doing, just like keeping an electronic journal in bio databases so that other people can follow the process that you followed. This would include being consistent in how you enter data into your spreadsheet, having all information in one place, and using file types that can be easily used be others in the future, like DataONE stresses in their powerpoint. |
| | + | |
| | + | *'''Do you have any further reaction to this case after viewing Dr. Baggerly's talk?''' |
| | + | I still have the same general feeling about the case. It seems odd that people in the science field would not take better care of their data, and be so lazy when it comes to making their data valid and easy to use by others. In order to have any sort of high reputation in your respective field it seems like you wouldn't want to seem like an amateur when presenting your data to others, especially if you present fraudulent data as something to be prized. |
| | + | |
| | + | *'''Look at the methods and results described in the Merrell et al. (2002) paper. Do you think there is sufficient information there to reproduce their data analysis? Why or why not?''' |
| | + | The methods and results were not clearly defined. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult for another person to attempt to reproduce the results, since even the results were not clearly defined. The authors used many terms such as "one possibility," suggesting that even they cannot be certain in their own findings. For one to be able to successfully reproduce the data, more detailed information about the process would be needed. |
| | + | |
| | + | [[User:Ajvree|Ajvree]] ([[User talk:Ajvree|talk]]) 22:35, 17 October 2013 (PDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | =='''[[user:Dwilliams|Dillon Williams]]'''== |
| | + | #The main issue with the data is that it didn't match up with the results that Baggerly and Coombs had formulated from the data. DataONE enumerates that valid and organized to support ease of use, the data sets presented from Duke did not match up with either of these. Dr. Baggerly used the excuse that mixing up sample labels, gene labels, and group labels were common mistakes that could have happened to anybody. |
| | + | #Dr. Baggerly recommends keeping data records as clear and consistent as possible at the research level and advises labeling published data with a code in order that others can reproduce the same results effectively. DataONE also recommends keeping better data, especially in regards to keeping data maximally consistent. |
| | + | #I don't really understand how researchers that were actively involved in this experiment were so lax about monitoring their data. |
| | + | #I would not be willing to assume one way or the other. To be honest, I'm not well educated enough in the field to give an accurate hypothesis as to such results. |
| | + | -[[User:Dwilliams|Dwilliams]] ([[User talk:Dwilliams|talk]]) 23:42, 17 October 2013 (PDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | =='''[[user:mmalefyt|Miles Malefyt]]'''== |
| | + | 1.What were the main issues with the data and analysis identified by Baggerly and Coombs? What best practices enumerated by DataONE were violated? Which of these did Dr. Baggerly claim were common issues? |
| | + | |
| | + | The main issues with the data and analysis as identified by Baggerly and Coombs were that the end result of the data did not match up with the methods used. The numbers must have been made up or manipulated in many cases in order to get the results which ended up being non-reproduceable. |
| | + | |
| | + | 2.What recommendations does Dr. Baggerly recommend for reproducible research? How do these correspond to what DataONE recommends? |
| | + | |
| | + | The DataONE and Dr.Baggerly reccomend being consistent with the data used and adhering to the methods described so that they can be reproduceable |
| | + | |
| | + | 3.Do you have any further reaction to this case after viewing Dr. Baggerly's talk? |
| | + | |
| | + | I feel that much of the scientific community is more oriented towards showing results than making data that is able to be reproduced. It makes me feel like this is more about money and fame than it is about the actual science. |
| | + | |
| | + | 4.Look at the methods and results described in the Merrell et al. (2002) paper. Do you think there is sufficient information there to reproduce their data analysis? Why or why not? |
| | + | |
| | + | [[User:Mmalefyt|Mmalefyt]] ([[User talk:Mmalefyt|talk]]) 18:44, 17 October 2013 (PDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | =='''[[user:laurmagee|Lauren Magee]]'''== | | =='''[[user:laurmagee|Lauren Magee]]'''== |
Unexpected non-MediaWiki exception encountered, of type "Error"
Error: Call to undefined function each() in /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DairikiDiff.php:374
Stack trace:
#0 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DairikiDiff.php(480): _DiffEngine->_diag()
#1 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DairikiDiff.php(291): _DiffEngine->_compareseq()
#2 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DairikiDiff.php(175): _DiffEngine->diff_local()
#3 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DairikiDiff.php(653): _DiffEngine->diff()
#4 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DairikiDiff.php(820): Diff->__construct()
#5 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DairikiDiff.php(1240): MappedDiff->__construct()
#6 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DairikiDiff.php(1458): WordLevelDiff->__construct()
#7 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DairikiDiff.php(952): TableDiffFormatter->_changed()
#8 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DairikiDiff.php(924): DiffFormatter->_block()
#9 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DifferenceEngine.php(765): DiffFormatter->format()
#10 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DifferenceEngine.php(655): DifferenceEngine->generateDiffBody()
#11 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DifferenceEngine.php(593): DifferenceEngine->getDiffBody()
#12 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DifferenceEngine.php(566): DifferenceEngine->getDiff()
#13 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/diff/DifferenceEngine.php(409): DifferenceEngine->showDiff()
#14 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/Article.php(725): DifferenceEngine->showDiffPage()
#15 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/Article.php(478): Article->showDiffPage()
#16 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/actions/ViewAction.php(37): Article->view()
#17 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/Wiki.php(427): ViewAction->show()
#18 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/Wiki.php(304): MediaWiki->performAction()
#19 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/Wiki.php(536): MediaWiki->performRequest()
#20 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/includes/Wiki.php(446): MediaWiki->main()
#21 /apps/xmlpipedb/biodb/fall2013/index.php(59): MediaWiki->run()
#22 {main}