Can flipping coins replace animal experiments?

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Instead of repeating an experiment in a mouse model of disease in their laboratory, researchers in Berlin, Germany used a coin toss to confirm whether a drug protects the brain against a stroke, as reported in their paper publishing April 9 in the open-access journal PLOS Biology.

With this provocative and seemingly absurd experiment Sophie Piper and colleagues from the Berlin Institute of Health (BIH) and the Charité -Universitätsmedizin Berlin drastically expose a problem which potentially affects many studies in experimental biomedicine. Small sample sizes, often below 10, and almost universally loose thresholds for accepting (5%) lead to a high rate of false positive results and an overestimation of true effects. Their study alerts researchers that, contrary to common expectation, replication of a study—in settings which are common in many laboratories worldwide—may not add more evidence to what could be gained from tossing a coin.

Many research fields are struggling with what has been termed "the replication crisis." Quite often results from one cannot be replicated by researchers in another lab, with successful replication rates often falling below 50 %. This has shaken confidence in the robustness of the scientific enterprise in general and stimulated a search for underlying causes.

Toward this end, many researchers have started to repeat experiments within their laboratories as an integral part of robust science and good scientific practice. Yet in their article, Piper and colleagues scrutinize the utility of replicating experiments within laboratories and send a surprising message of caution regarding current replication practices. They provide detailed theoretical and practical background for how to properly conduct and report replication studies to help scientists save resources and prevent futile use of animals, while increasing the robustness and reproducibility of their results.

"Replication is a fundament of the scientific process. We can learn from successful and from failed —but only if we design, perform, and report them properly," said the authors.

Explore further

The replication crisis is good for science

More information: Piper SK, Grittner U, Rex A, Riedel N, Fischer F, Nadon R, et al. (2019) Exact replication: Foundation of science or game of chance? PLoS Biol 17(4): e3000188.
Journal information: PLoS Biology

Citation: Can flipping coins replace animal experiments? (2019, April 9) retrieved 21 September 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 09, 2019
Don't even have to read this to know it is one of the more bone-headed notions I have ever seen.

If you don't have enough solid data to proceed to animal models, they should not be done. And any study that will not provide a solid answer shouldn't either. If 10 animals are not enough, go to 50, or however many you need if the work is that significant.

All of these animal were created for use in such studies. All the bleeding hearts will never appreciate that their own lives depended and may still depend on such studies.

At least the authors close with the basic reality of it all:

"Replication is a fundament of the scientific process. We can learn from successful and from failed replication—but only if we design, perform, and report them properly....."

Apr 21, 2019
Preliminary studies with such low sample sizes rarely lead to anything, even accounting for poor reproducibility. But I don't think it is as bad as they claim, even in psychology they managed to get to 30 % erroneous papers IIRC. That means much of reproduction problems is lack of standards and poor writing in exploratory areas, which the authors recognize: it is a multifactorial outcome.

It *is* an ethical problem around experiment animals.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more