>If scientists are going to complain that's its too hard or too expensive to replicate their studies, then that just shows their work is BS.

1 mg of anti-rabbit antibody (a common thing to use in a lot of biology experiments) is $225 [1]. Outside of things like standard buffers and growth medium for prokaryotes, this is going to be the cheapest thing you use in an experiment.

1/10th of that amount for anti-flagellin antibody is $372. [2]

A kit to prep a cell for RNA sequencing is $6-10 per use. That's JUST isolation of the RNA. Not including reverse transcribing it to cDNA for sequencing, or the sequencing itself. [3]

Let's not even reach things like materials science where you may be working on an epitaxial growth paper, and there are only a handful of labs where they could even feasibly repeat the experiment.

Or say something with a BSL-3 lab where there are literally only 15 labs in the US that could feasibly do the work, assuming they aren't working on their own stuff. [4]

[1] - https://www.thermofisher.com/antibody/product/Goat-anti-Rabb... [2] https://www.invivogen.com/anti-flagellin [3] https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/12183018A [4] https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/tufts-regional-biocontain...

Nah, it doesn't. It just shows that it's time consuming and expensive to replicate their studies.

I guess if software developers will complain that it's too hard or too expensive to thoroughly test their code to ensure exactly zero bugs at release[1], then that just shows their work is BS.

[1]: if you have delivered telco code to Softbank you may have heard this sentence

What if it REALLY is too expensive? You do realize that there are studies which literally cost millions of dollars? Getting funding for original studies is hard enough, good luck securing additional funds for replication.

Something in switzerland called the Large Hadron Collider comes to mind.

I guess we should not talk about the Higgs before someone else builds a second one and replicates the papers.