Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Evidence synthesis for tackling research waste

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 4, pages 495–497 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

There is an immediate need for a change in research workflows so that pre-existing knowledge is better used in designing new research. A formal assessment of the accumulated knowledge prior to research approval would reduce the waste of already limited resources caused by asking low priority questions.

The term ‘research waste’ is defined as research outcomes with no societal benefits1. This occurs when the knowledge generated is either not innovative and novel, when it is not applicable to real-world situations, or when the research effort itself does not have societal impact (for example, training students or engaging stakeholders). Waste can occur at any stage of the research process2: question setting; methods; accessibility; and reporting (Table 1). In medicine, research waste is a well-established concept, and in 2009 research waste was estimated to cost US$85 billion2, with few signs of improvement in the last decade1. There is little reason to believe that the situation is substantially different in ecology and conservation, although there are no field-wide formal assessments of research waste.

Table 1 The research process stages, examples of potential research waste and how ecology and conservation can limit these
Full size table

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. Glasziou, P. & Chalmers, I. BMJ 363, k4645 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chalmers, I. & Glasziou, P. Lancet 374, 86–89 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fraser, H., Parker, T., Nakagawa, S., Barnett, A. & Fidler, F. PLoS ONE 13, e0200303 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nilsen, E. B., Bowler, D. & Linnell, J. D. C. J. Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13571 (2020).

  5. Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S. & Stewart, G. Nature 555, 175–182 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gold, R. et al. Health Expect. 16, 338–350 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Saran, A. & White, H. Campbell Syst. Rev. 14, 1–38 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Stewart, G. B., Higgins, J. P., Schünemann, H. & Meader, N. PLoS ONE 10, e0114497 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lau, J. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 327, 248–254 (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Koricheva, J. & Kulinskaya, E. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 895–902 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Leimu, R. & Koricheva, J. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 1961–1966 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nichols, J. D., Kendall, W. L. & Boomer, G. S. Ecol. Evol. 9, 13991–14004 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Carrick, J. et al. J. Flood Risk Manag. 12, e12484 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Altmann, D. BMJ 308, 283 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Darras, K. et al. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 2575–2586 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank H. Fraser and J. Eales for their insightful comments on our commentary which has greatly improved the final version.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim, Norway

    Matthew J. Grainger & Erlend B. Nilsen

  2. Modelling Evidence and Policy Research Group, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Friederike C. Bolam & Gavin B. Stewart

Authors
  1. Matthew J. Grainger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Friederike C. Bolam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gavin B. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erlend B. Nilsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew J. Grainger.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Fig. 1 and references.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grainger, M.J., Bolam, F.C., Stewart, G.B. et al. Evidence synthesis for tackling research waste. Nat Ecol Evol 4, 495–497 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1141-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1141-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing