Survey says…

It has become a common refrain: science has a reproducibility problem. It’s increasingly recognized by scientists and the journal editors that distribute their work that the results obtained in one lab will often fail to be recreated in another. Preclinical work involving animals is no exception, which raises additional questions about the justifiable use of those research animals. What problems do the stakeholders involved with preclinical research face that can contribute to irreproducibility? There are quite a few, and many concerns overlap. In 2016, a small team surveyed biomedical researchers, policy-makers, funders, and regulators about the issue, as part of a NIH-funded project to design tools to help with experimental design. They summarize and present their interviewees’ responses in a new Correspondence this month.

See page 175

The name game

What’s in a name? When referring to a mouse used in a research study, there’s quite a bit. Even though laboratory mice are all the same species, there are important variances to consider. Deliberate mutations and background genetics can all make a big difference in the course of an experiment and, if not properly accounted for, can confound outcomes. Missing details can also foil attempts to reproduce previous work. Proper nomenclature is an important consideration, but one that’s full of twists and turns to the unfamiliar. That doesn’t mean it can be ignored. Writer Smriti Mallapaty reports on the history of lab mouse nomenclature and how to go about getting it right.

See page 178