Send message to Authors

Long abstract:

Scientific findings can be scrutinized and potentially corrected in different ways. One possibility is to revise published results by replicating them with a diagnostic motive (Peterson and Panofsky, 2021). Such replication studies involve challenges on a conceptual (e.g. developing guidelines, creating a corpus) and empirical level (e.g. optimizing protocols, having access to the same models of the original article). We focus on a project in the nanobiosciences that aims to replicate experiments, which use nanoparticles for sensing targets inside mammalian cells. Maha uses cellular biology and microscopy techniques to replicate experiments and test the nanoparticles’ ability to sense inside cells. Candida uses lab and conference ethnography to observe how the project is set up, presented, and received. Over the last three years, we have observed that a replication project can evoke a lack of institutional support, no response from the original authors, and criticism from researchers in the field, which leads to caution to collaborate with members of the project. However, scientists who have faced problems with reproducibility can be interested in cooperating. Based on these (anticipated) responses, it is vital for the project members to build social infrastructures. They establish labs for different experiments, organize access to scientific instruments, contribute to conferences, create publication outlets for Registered Reports, order from reliable vendors, and invite colleagues and contractors to participate in multi-lab replications. We argue that the construction of these social infrastructures requires a significant amount of time and resources, but they provide a necessary foundation for doing contested science.