[kergonath]

> I don't quite get this point: this is cancer research, co in theory all related institutions should be interested in replicating breakthrough studies, right?

I share your concern. The operative word here is “should”. I. Practice replication studies have an opportunity cost because they won’t end up in a prestigious journal, they are harder to use in grant applications, and the time and resources could be spent on studies that would be more useful in these ways.

> And failure to replicate it, time after time, should be a cause of concern, shouldn't it?

It would be, and it would also indicate that a technique is dodgy, or that a research group or scientist is unreliable.

[tremon]

it would also indicate that a technique is dodgy, or that a research group or scientist is unreliable.

Not necessarily: it could also mean that we don't properly understand the process, and therefore essential steps/prerequisites in the experiment are left undocumented. That type of error is more fundamental than merely the technique or the researcher.