We're excited to partner with Science: Disrupt to present a five-part podcast exploring what 'Responsible Science' means amidst the reproducibility crisis.
We as scientists learn from each success and failure. Sometimes it takes many failures to achieve success. And some discoveries are made with no fanfare, far from the spotlight. Other times, a good day’s work is even sweeter when you realize someone noticed!
So your experiments and data are funneling you down an inescapable path. You need to show direct gene regulation by your protein of interest. You think to yourself, “Oh, ChIP...”
Lack of reproducibility in scientific studies has been a major topic of conversation lately. It's an important conversation for us to have, given the potential of this problem to affect how the research community views the published literature. Many potential reasons for the problem exist, but CST is focused on the role vendors play in ensuring the reagents being used by the scientific community are properly validated.
These are important issues that need to be addressed by the scientific community and we should all be part of the conversation . . .
After months of hard work, your research has zeroed in on a hypothesis you can test with immunofluorescence (IF). But now you have to make a choice. How do you decide which antibody to use to get reliable IF results? How do you know if the images are accurately reporting the target's localization? We explore some considerations in this post.