[fchopin]

> Anyways, let's keep science the way it is. There's no way the process or its results could possibly be improved!

Let it be know that this is sarcasm, for those that have trouble determining that.

Note: I was being completely serious about having graduate students being required to replicate studies that have not been replicated, or to disprove them. That was not sarcasm.

[apathy]

Graduate students are effectively required to replicate studies already. They just don't get any credit for the work when it turns out that the flashy paper didn't replicate, and the journal editors hate to look foolish, so it's exceedingly rare for failures to replicate to see a journal. So the next graduate student to work on the technique also gets to waste months or years on it.

Really a splendid system, isn't it? Sometimes (rarely) I sympathize with industry types who want grant claw-back processes. Then I remember that those are the same crooks that pushed Vioxx and 510k "equivalent" medical devices. And the sympathy evaporates, because they're even worse.