RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Why Is It So Hard To Do Good Science? JF eneuro JO eNeuro FD Society for Neuroscience SP ENEURO.0188-18.2018 DO 10.1523/ENEURO.0188-18.2018 A1 Ray Dingledine YR 2018 UL http://www.eneuro.org/content/early/2018/09/04/ENEURO.0188-18.2018.abstract AB “Good science” means answering important questions convincingly, a challenging endeavor under the best of circumstances. Our inability to replicate many biomedical studies has been the subject of numerous commentaries both in the scientific and lay press. In response, statistics has re-emerged as a necessary tool to improve the objectivity of study conclusions. However, psychological aspects of decision–making introduce preconceived preferences into scientific judgment that cannot be eliminated by any statistical method. The psychology of decision making, expounded by Kahneman, Tversky and Thayer, is well known in the field of economics, but the underlying concepts of cognitive psychology are also relevant to scientific judgments. I repeated experiments carried out on undergraduates by Kahneman and colleagues four to five decades ago, but with scientists, and obtained essentially the same results. The experiments were in the form of written reactions to scenarios, and participants were scientists at all career stages. The findings reinforce the roles that two inherent intuitions play in scientific decision-making: our drive to create a coherent narrative from new data regardless of its quality or relevance, and our inclination to seek patterns in data whether they exist or not. Moreover, we do not always consider how likely a result is regardless of its P-value. Low statistical power and inattention to principles underpinning Bayesian statistics reduce experimental rigor, but mitigating skills can be learned. Overcoming our natural human tendency to make quick decisions and jump to conclusions is a deeper obstacle to doing good science; this too can be learned.Significance Statement Societal approaches to improving the rigor and reproducibility of preclinical biomedical science have largely been technical in nature with a renewed focus on the role of statistics in good experimental designs. By contrast, the importance of preconceived notions introduced by our very human nature has been under-appreciated for their influence on scientific judgments. Explicitly recognizing and addressing these cognitive biases, and including such strategies as carrying out a “premortem” before embarking on new experimental directions, should improve scientific judgments and thereby improve the quality of published findings, eventually boosting public confidence in science.