52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "
Knowledge regarding substance-related problems and offending behavior in individuals with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning (MBID; IQ 50-85) has increased over the last years, but is still limited. The present study examined differences in prevalence and clinical characteristics of individuals with and without MBID in a forensic addiction treatment center. Participants were 190 court mandated male clients of a low to high security forensic addiction treatment center in the Netherlands (aged between 21 and 59 years old, 82% of Dutch origin). Of the total sample 39% could be identified with MBID which is much higher than the estimated 12% to 15% of the general population. Results showed that clients with MBID reported significantly lower scores on desire for help, compared to clients without MBID (F (1, 73) = 5.12, p = .027). Against expectations, no significant group differences were found for aggression during treatment while controlling for impulsivity, treatment duration and type of substance use and offense. As results of the present study showed that clients with MBID are overrepresented in the forensic addiction treatment center, future research should further explore characteristics and responses to treatment of these clients. More knowledge about the characteristics of clients with MBID will not only help to better identify these clients, but will also to improve treatment for this group
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.