Advertisement

Errors and Error Management in Biomedical Research

  • Ulrich Dirnagl
  • René Bernard
Chapter

Abstract

The authors put a much-needed focus on the validity of biomedical research results that has come under scrutiny. However, as they make clear, due to the complexity of the experiments involved, errors quite naturally occur frequently. A way of managing these errors is the “Laboratory Critical Incident and Error Reporting System” (LabCIRS), a software tool to record all incidents anonymously and to analyze, discuss, and communicate them. It has been adapted from the CIRS, used in the clinical world to improve patient safety in complex, fast-paced, and often understaffed settings.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Sebastian Major, Ingo Przesdzing, and Claudia Kurreck for developing, implementing, and testing LabCIRS.

Funding Statement

Ulrich Dirnagl acknowledges the financial support of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF 01 EO 08 01) and the Herman and Lilly Schilling Foundations. The funders had no role in the decision to publish or the preparation of the manuscript.

Competing Interests

None of the authors have any competing interests to declare.

References

  1. Baker, M. 2016a. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533: 452–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ———. 2016b. How quality control could save your science. Nature 529: 456–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Begley, C.G., A.M. Buchan, and U. Dirnagl. 2015. Robust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility. Nature 525: 25–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carey, B. 2015. Science, now under scrutiny itself. New York Times, p. D1. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/science/retractions-coming-out-from-under-science-rug.html?_r=1
  5. Cooper, J.B., R.S. Newbower, C.D. Long, and B. McPeek. 1978. Preventable anesthesia mishaps: A study of human factors. Anesthesiology 49: 399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cyranoski, D. 2006. Verdict: Hwang’s human stem cells were all fakes. Nature 439: 122–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies, R. 2013. Good research practice: It is time to do what others think we do. Quasar (124): 21–23.Google Scholar
  8. Dirnagl, U., I. Przesdzing, C. Kurreck, and S. Major. 2016. A laboratory critical incident and error reporting system for experimental biomedicine. PLoS Biology.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000705.
  9. Flanagan, J.C. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psychology Bulletin 51: 327–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ioannidis, J.P.A. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2: e124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ioannidis, J.P.A., D. Fanelli, D.D. Dunne, and S.N. Goodman. 2015. Meta-research: Evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biology 13: e1002264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Macleod, M.R., et al. 2014. Biomedical research: Increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383: 101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Obokata, H., et al. 2014. Retraction: Stimulus-triggered fate conversion of somatic cells into pluripotency. Nature 511: 112.Google Scholar
  14. Riedl, D.H., and M.K. Dunn. 2013. Quality assurance mechanisms for the unregulated research environment. Trends Biotechnology 31: 552–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrich Dirnagl
    • 1
  • René Bernard
    • 1
  1. 1.BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations