All Posts

The C. elegans community has always emphasised the need for open science and collaboration. The field already has comprehensive reference pages and curated databases for scientists including Wormbook, Wormatlas and Wormbase. And scientists have been continuously sharing their worm strains through the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center (CGC) which maintains and distributes the strains all over the world.

When I was at the 22nd International C. elegans meeting, I was again reminded of the extent that C. elegans researchers embrace open science and share resources and tools. That message was fully exemplified in Cori Bargmann’s keynote speech and in the workshops on CRISPR techniques and new tools for conditional expression and degradation. These workshops not only highlighted new tools but also included time for questions and a group discussion on the best strategies and protocols for different experiments. 

In 2017, Lenny Teytelman, CEO of protocols.io, organized a panel to discuss reproducibility issues in research. But he realized that it wasn’t enough to discuss the age-old problem of irreproducibility in science or even to discuss potential solutions. Despite all the talk, not much was being done to address the issue head on. It was at this pivotal moment that Teytelman realized that running interactive workshops to train researchers on tools and best practices could be an actionable way to tackle widespread irreproducibility. Luckily, there were other academics and like-minded organizations with similar ideas who were also thinking about reproducibility and shared similar desires to take action. Thanks to Teytelman’s vast network and ability to identify the right opportunities, he was able to bring together talented and motivated groups and individuals with similar ideas to actually do something about it.

This post was contributed by Rory Macneil, founder of Research Space.

There are many types of electronic lab notebooks (ELNs), each with its own pros and cons. All ELNs have the virtue of liberating data from paper into an electronic environment and hence making it searchable and shareable, but some ELNs provide better support for reproducibility than others.

Unfortunately, most ELNs are designed as closed ecosystems and act as data silos because they limit connectivity with other tools and resources. Thus, it’s difficult to get data out of the ELN. This means that reproducibility is limited in two ways – only data inside the ELN is reproducible, and only the highly restricted number of people who can access the ELN have the ability to attempt to reproduce the research that produced the data.

This post was contributed by guest blogger, Tea Pavlek, Product Marketing Manager at sciNote.

Today, every lab has its own habits and approaches to record keeping. Top priorities in most cases include IP protection, publications and funding. If any of these three pillars crashes, the lab's success and the careers of its researchers are on the line.

Last Wednesday we worked with the Harvard GSAS Science Policy Group to organize a Minisymposium on Reproducibility. The minisymposium focused on solutions to reproducibility issues in the biological sciences and featured speakers from academia, industry, nonprofits, and publishing. The livestream video from the event can be found below along with a description of the program beneath it. You can jump to the different time stamps in the description to watch any sections you’re particularly interested in, but I’d recommend watching the whole livestream for a more holistic understand of reproducibility issues and their potential solutions.

Prior to this event, I gave my own talk on reproducibility at Addgene and here I summarize what I learned both in preparation for my talk and at the minisymposium. You can find a variety of additional resources and information about organizations promoting reproducibility in this booklet (which was also handed out at the event).