It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Friday, November 10, 2023
Liquid metals shake up century-old chemical engineering processes
Offering the chemical industry an ‘unparalleled possibility’ for changing the future of chemical processes
Liquid metals could be the long-awaited solution to “greening” the chemical industry, according to researchers who tested a new technique they hope can replace energy-intensive chemical engineering processes harking back to the early 20th century.
Chemical production accounts for approximately 10-15 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. More than 10 percent of world’s total energy is also used in chemical factories.
A catalyst is a substance that makes chemical reactions occur faster and more easily without participating in the reaction. Solid catalysts, typically solid metals or solid compounds of metals, are commonly used in the chemical industry to make plastics, fertilisers, fuels and feedstock.
However, chemical production using solid processes is energy intensive, requiring temperatures of up to a thousand degrees centigrade.
The new process instead uses liquid metals, in this case dissolving tin and nickel which gives them unique mobility, enabling them to migrate to the surface of liquid metals and react with input molecules such as canola oil. This results in the rotation, fragmentation, and reassembly of canola oil molecules into smaller organic chains, including propylene, a high-energy fuel crucial for many industries.
“Our method offers an unparalleled possibility to the chemical industry for reducing energy consumption and greening chemical reactions,” said Professor Kalantar-Zadeh.
“It’s expected that the chemical sector will account for more than 20 percent of emissions by 2050,” said Professor Kalantar-Zadeh. “But chemical manufacturing is much less visible than other sectors – a paradigm shift is vital.”
How the process works
Atoms in liquid metals are more randomly arranged and have greater freedom of movement than solids. This allows them to easily come into contact with, and participate in, chemical reactions. “Theoretically, they can catalyse chemicals at much lower temperatures – meaning they require far less energy,” Professor Kalantar-Zadeh said.
In their research, the authors dissolved high melting point nickel and tin in a gallium based liquid metal with a melting point of only 30 degrees centigrade.
“By dissolving nickel in liquid gallium, we gained access to liquid nickel at very low temperatures – acting as a ‘super’ catalyst’. In comparison solid nickel’s melting point is 1455 degrees centigrade. The same effect, to a lesser degree, is also experienced for tin metal in liquid gallium,” Dr Tang said.
The metals were dispersed in liquid metal solvents at the atomic level. “So we have access to single atom catalysts. Single atom is the highest surface area accessibility for catalysis which offer a remarkable advantage to the chemical industry,” said Dr Arifur Rahim, senior author and DECRA Fellow at the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering.
The researchers said their formula could also be used for other chemical reactions by mixing metals using the low temperature processes.
“It requires such low temperature to catalyse that we could even theoretically do it in the kitchen with the gas cooktop – but don’t try that at home,” Dr Tang said.
Liquid gallium in a Petri dish.
Placing liquid gallium in a Petri dish via syringe.
Dynamic configurations of metallic atoms in the liquid state for selective propylene synthesis
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
9-Nov-2023
COI STATEMENT
This work was led by University of Sydney researchers in collaboration with colleagues at UNSW and RMIT, Australia, and UCLA, USA.
UPDATED
Scientists flag conflicts of interest ahead of UN plastic and chemical talks
GREEN SCIENCE POLICY INSTITUTE
An international group of 35 scientists is calling out conflicts of interest plaguing global plastic treaty negotiations and that have interfered with timely action on other health and environmental issues. They urge the implementation of strict guidelines to prevent the same problems from affecting the UN’s upcoming Science Policy Panel on chemicals. Their concerns and recommendations are outlined in a featured paper in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
“From Big Tobacco to Big Oil, powerful industries use the same playbook to manufacture doubt and sow misinformation,” said co-author Bethanie Carney Almroth, a Professor at the Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg. “The plastic and chemical industries already have a long history of deploying these tactics to hamper regulatory efforts. Our health and that of the planet upon which we rely, can’t afford any further subversion of efforts to reduce the widespread contamination of our air and water.”
The group’s warning comes as countries prepare to meet next week for thethird UN plastic treaty negotiation session in Nairobi. Though scientists had advised against it, the plastic and petrochemical industries were actively involved in the first round of negotiations in 2022. The paper notes that industry representatives pushed misleading statements, including the debunkedclaim that plastic production will help fight climate change. To date, no action has been taken to curb these conflicts of interest.
The scientists express concern that similar issues could arise in the development of the UN Science Policy Panel on chemicals, waste, and pollution. The UN Environment Assembly decided in 2022 to establish this Panel to support countries in their efforts to protect human and ecosystem health through scientific assessments. As the working group to create the Panelwill meet Dec. 11-15, today’s paper is a call to protect its work from undue influence by companies with a vested interest in revenue-generating chemicals.
“Letting polluters have a say in pollution protections is the epitome of the fox guarding the henhouse,” said lead author Andreas Schäffer, a Professor at the Institute for Environmental Research, RWTH Aachen University. “Just like the tobacco industry was restricted from WHO’s work on smoking, the UN shouldn’t let the chemical industry’s hired guns dilute global guidelines for chemical and waste management.”
The participation of industry in a UN intergovernmental science-policy body would not be unprecedented. For example, fossil fuel representatives co-authored major reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Science Policy’s Panel analogue for climate.
To ensure the effectiveness of the Science Policy Panel, the scientists who co-authored the paper issue the following key recommendations that should be incorporated into the process:
Define clear and strict conflict of interest provisions.
Do not confuse the undesirable conflicts of financial or political competing interests with legitimate interests or biases.
Install regular audits of the Panel’s work to check for conflict of interest.
Secure as many elements of transparency as possible.
The new Global Plastics Treaty must tackle the problem at source, researchers say.
An international negotiation meeting (INC-3) in Kenya begins on Monday, aiming to further develop a legally binding treaty on plastic pollution.
Writing in the journal Science, researchers say the treaty must prioritise “upstream” issues: cutting total production and consumption of plastics, phasing out hazardous chemicals and tackling fossil fuel subsidies.
They highlight a “worrying” level of focus on downstream recycling and waste management – when the true solution must address the full life cycle of plastics.
They say the treaty must be holistic – with more focus on early interventions and the people, places and ecosystems most impacted by plastic pollution.
“Right now, simply too much attention and capital is focussed ‘downstream’ – recycling and cleaning up plastic already in the environment, in many cases just after a single use ” said Dr Mengjiao (Melissa) Wang, from Greenpeace Research Laboratories at the University of Exeter.
“That is vital work, but it can only be part of the solution, and only if done in a safe, environmentally sound and socially just way.
“Removing the mess while making more is a doomed strategy. We cannot recycle our way out.
“An effective treaty must be holistic, covering everything from fossil fuel extraction and plastic production to recycling and removing waste that already pollutes our land and ocean.”
Currently, “downstream” recovery and recycling receives 88% of investment money – while just 4% is directed to “upstream” reuse solutions.
The authors say this imbalance comes from “fossil-fuel-entwined political economy of plastics”, which continues to accelerate production, consumption and waste, adding further to the triple Planetary Crisis – climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution.
They say the zero draft of the treaty “disproportionately emphasises waste management investment and neglects opportunities" for more efficient and cost-effective upstream strategies like reduction, redesign and reuse.
The researchers say the treaty should require polymer manufacturers to pay a “substantial fee pegged to the quantity of primary plastics produced”, define criteria for strong and independent Extended Producer Responsibility schemes, and ensure both public and private financing align with the zero waste hierarchy by prioritising upstream strategies.
An effective Plastics Treaty to close the back door for fossil fuels
The new treaty could and should become a global mechanism, to close a key loophole left by the Paris Agreement.
“The problem of plastic pollution is huge, and it can feel overwhelming,” said Dr Lucy Woodall, from the University of Exeter.
“But there are opportunities and challenges at each stage of the life cycle of plastics – from fossil fuel extraction onwards.”
Global climate governance aims to stop the burning of fossil fuels, but they could still be extracted and used to make plastics – so the Plastics Treaty provides a not-to-be-missed opportunity to close this “back door”.
“One vital step is to focus on ecosystems,” said Dr Woodall.
“Once in the environment, plastic litter can entangle and choke wildlife, and plastic objects can act as a reservoir for invasive species and concentrate other pollutants.
“Plastics can also break down into potentially toxic micro- and nanoplastics.”
The treaty’s zero draft used terms such as “hotspot” and “cleanup” – putting the focus on concentrations rather than the natural systems and their specific context, therefore the well-being and livelihoods of the nature and people these pollutants affect are ignored.
“This implies that the plastics problem can be solved without considering ecosystem restoration and the disproportionate burden of plastic pollution in some ecosystems,” Dr Woodall said.
“Vibrant ecosystems are vital for biodiversity and human health, so protecting them should be the centre of our approach.”
‘Chemical simplification’
Chemicals in plastics are one of the key barriers to addressing global plastic pollution.
Current regulations don’t require producers to track or publish information on the levels of harmful chemicals.
The authors argue for “chemical simplification”, significantly reducing the production and use of especially hazardous chemicals, and increasing transparency and traceability along the whole supply chain, to fulfil one of the many necessary steps to ensure products can be safely and effectively recycled.
The researchers are hopeful that an effective treaty can be agreed – but some countries are expected to resist more ambitious language and delay the process.
“When we speak to negotiators, they give us a political ‘reality check’ about balancing ambition with getting a treaty agreed in due time,” Dr Wang said.
“In return, our role as scientists is to provide a scientific reality check about the scale of this problem and the solutions that can actually work to bring us back to the safe operating space of the earth.
“We need a treaty that is holistic and ambitious, tackling every stage of this problem – extraction, production, resource allocation – to stop the build-up of plastic waste and harmful chemicals in our planet’s precious ecosystems.”
The letters published in Science are entitled: “Chemical simplification and tracking in plastics”, “Plastics treaty text must center ecosystems” and “Finance plastics reuse, redesign, and reduction”.
AMHEST, Mass. – A collaborative research team lead by the University of Massachusetts Amherst has recently revealed that rotifers, a kind of microscopic zooplankton common in both fresh and ocean water around the world, are able to chew apart microplastics, breaking them down into even smaller, and potentially more dangerous, nanoplastics—or particles smaller than one micron. Each rotifer can create between 348,000 – 366,000 per day, leading to uncountable swarms of nanoparticles in our environment. In China’s Poyang Lake, the country’s largest freshwater lake, the researchers calculated that rotifers were creating 13.3 quadrillion particles every single day. The research was recently reported in Nature Nanotechnology.
It is well known that plastic is an incredibly durable material, which can take up to 500 years to decompose. As plastic bottles, packaging and parts get older, teeny pieces of them break off. These microplastics have been found in every corner of the globe, from the top of Mount Everest to the depths of the Mariana Trench, and, according to recent reports, they are in many humans’ blood and heart tissue.
The problem is that microplastics pose an as-of-yet unknown risk to the environment and to human health, and they’re altering ecosystems throughout the world.
The smaller the plastic particle, the more easily they spread and the more of them they are. Each individual microplastic could theoretically be broken down into 1,000,000,000,000,000 nanoplastic particles.
Smaller size also means more surface area, which means they are more reactive and potentially even more harmful to the health of humans and other living beings than microplastics. While there has been much attention given to microplastics, there has been far little interest in studying nanoplastics, particularly in how they’re generated, which means we don’t really know how many nanoplastics might be out there.
“Humans produce enormous amounts of plastics, and yet we don’t have an effective way of recycling them,” says Baoshan Xing, University Distinguished Professor of Environmental & Soil Chemistry at UMass Amherst’s Stockbridge School of Agriculture and the paper’s senior author. “We began to wonder about nanoplastics and especially how they’re produced.”
In part, they’re produced through physical and chemical processes: sunlight breaks plastics down, and waves grind bits of plastic against rocks, beaches and other trash floating in the ocean. But Xing and his colleagues wondered what role living creatures might play in the creation of microplastics, especially after learning that Antarctic krill seem to be able to break microplastics down into smaller particles.
Xing and his colleagues were particularly curious about rotifers, of which there are around 2,000 different species worldwide. “Whereas Antarctic krill live in a place that is essentially unpopulated,” says Xing, “we chose rotifers in part because they occur throughout the world’s temperate and tropical zones, where people live.” They are abundant—one of the lakes other researchers reported had approximately 23,000 individual rotifers in every liter of water. And rotifers also have a specialized masticatory apparatus—“teeth”—that the team hypothesized could grind microplastics into smaller particles.
After exposing both marine and freshwater species of rotifers to a variety of different plastics of different sizes, they found that all rotifers could ingest microplastics of up to 10 micrometers in size, break them down and then excrete thousands of nanoplastics back into the environment. They estimated that rotifers could produce 13.3 quadrillion nanoparticles every day in Poyang Lake. Scale this up to all of the ocean and fresh bodies of water where both microplastics and rotifers are present, and the number of nanoplastic particles created every day is mind boggling.
“We show for the first time the ubiquitous fragmentation of microplastics by rotifers,” says Jian Zhao, professor of environmental science and engineering at the Ocean University of China and the paper’s lead author. “This is a newly discovered route to produce and generate nanoplastics in both freshwater and seawater system worldwide, in addition to well-known physical and photochemical fragmentations. This finding is helpful for accurately evaluating the global flux of nanoplastics. In addition, it is known that nanoplastics can not only be potentially toxic to various organisms, they can also serve as carriers for other contaminants in the environment. Furthermore, the release of chemical additives in the plastic can be enhanced during and after the fragmentation.”
“Our work is just the first step,” adds Xing. “We need to look at other organisms on the land and in water for biological fragmentation of microplastics and collaborate with toxicologists and public health researchers to determine what this plague of nanoplastics is doing to us.”
CREDIT: MELANIE BERGMANN, ALFRED WEGENER INSTITUTE
An international group of scientists has cautioned against reliance on mechanical cleanup devices as a means of addressing the plastic pollution crisis.
The researchers – comprising a number of the world’s foremost experts in plastic pollution – say they appreciate the clear and pressing need to tackle the millions of tonnes of waste that have already accumulated in the ocean and waterways.
However, they caution that plastic removal technologies used so far have shown varied efficiency in the amount of waste material they are able to collect, many have not been tested at all.
In fact, some have been shown to harm quantities of marine organisms – including fish, crustaceans and seaweeds – that far exceed the amount of plastic captured, meaning their overall impact on the ocean is potentially more harmful than helpful.
Writing in the journal One Earth, the scientists say with plastic production projected to triple by 2060 the most cost-effective and efficient way to prevent further pollution is to reduce plastic production and consumption, and for essential applications of plastics to design safe, sustainable products with a readily available and effective pathway for end-of-life disposal.
They also assert that the environmental costs of leaving plastic pollution in the ocean should be weighed against the full environmental and economic cost of plastic removal technologies, and call for clear criteria for such judgments to be incorporated in the United Nations Treaty on Plastic Pollution.
Their commentary has been published as world leaders prepare to resume discussions on the Treaty at the third meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution.
Lead author Dr Melanie Bergmann, a marine ecologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, said: “So far, we lack hard evidence on the net benefits of plastic removal technologies. On the contrary, there is often bycatch mortality associated with these technologies, which becomes a problem if scaled up. We have to scrutinize these technologies by applying science-based criteria to prevent regrettable outcomes.”
The research highlights that in recent years, several forms of cleanup devices have been developed to remove plastics from the environment.
Sieving vehicles are a common sight on tourist beaches, plastic trapping technologies have been deployed in harbours, and various types of booms, watercraft vehicles, bubble curtains, or receptacles have been positioned across rivers and estuaries.
In addition, there are innovations for the open ocean and the seabed that use combinations of towed nets, autonomous vessels and artificial intelligence.
However, the authors of the current paper say that even if these technologies were to show signs of being truly effective, they would barely scratch the surface of the global problem. Cleanup practices could also lead to greenwashing through new "plastic credit" schemes to offset the emissions of plastics through the indiscriminate use of unselective and harmful plastic removal technologies.
As a result, the international group is concerned that focusing too greatly on cleanup approaches will create more environmental risk, and be a distraction from the key priorities of the Plastic Treaty negotiations: Plastic pollution prevention.
ADDITIONAL QUOTES FROM STUDY CO-AUTHORS
The research was co-authored by scientists from: Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (Germany); Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Norway); University of Gothenburg, Stockholm University (Sweden); Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research, Gyres Institute; Earth Commons Institute, Georgetown University (USA); Aarhus University, Roskilde University (Denmark); Cukurova University, Özyeğin University (Turkey); University of Plymouth (UK); Manipal Academy of Higher Education (India); Massey University (New Zealand).
Professor Bethanie Carney Almroth, University of Gothenburg: “The planet is facing a triple planetary crisis of climate, biodiversity loss and pollution, all three of which are interconnected. Our actions need to be driven by an understanding of systemic consequences; we need to evaluate the impact of existing plastics pollution on biodiversity, but we also need to understand the impacts of cleanup technologies. We must find the best paths forward to prevent harm and protect the environment.”
Dr Hans Peter Arp, Norwegian University of Science and Technology: “The discussions regarding the UN Treaty on Plastic Pollution should focus on lowering the dependence and production of virgin plastic materials, particularly from fossil fuels, and towards zero waste. If the discussions instead focus on creating plastic offset schemes based on plastic removal technologies to offset waste and emissions, the treaty will not be effective at slowing this global crisis.“
Dr Sedat Gündoğdu, Cukurova University: “Plastic pollution is on the edge of irreversibility, and this pollution is not at a level that can be eliminated by expensive and limited cleanup technologies whose effectiveness has not been scientifically proven. Moreover, such activities pose a risk to biodiversity. Therefore, a more appropriate method in all respects would be to turn off the tap. The UN Treaty on Plastic Pollution should also bear this in mind.”
Dr Rebecca R. Helm, Georgetown University: "Research from my lab shows that cleanup technology may endanger local ecosystems even in the open ocean. Plastic pollution is dangerous for the environment because it disrupts normal environmental processes. But cleanup technologies only add to this disruption. We need ecologically safe and sound solutions, and we need them upstream. Once plastic is in the environment, it’s hard to remove without doing more damage.“
Professor Richard Thompson OBE, University of Plymouth, said: “Our research has shown that cleanup technology can harm marine life and be ineffective at actually cleaning If we focus on cleanup as a solution to plastic pollution we condemn future generations to continue contaminating the environment and cleaning up as an afterthought. The UN Treaty on Plastic Pollution needs systemic upstream solutions focused on prevention, not symptom management.“
PLASTIC RECYCLING FACILITIES ARE LOCATED ALL OVER THE WORLD. BUT THE PLASTIC THAT IS EXTRACTED CONTAINS HUNDREDS OF CHEMICALS, MANY OF WHICH ARE DANGEROUS TO PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
When scientists examined pellets from recycled plastic collected in 13 countries they found hundreds of toxic chemicals, including pesticides and pharmaceuticals. The results are published in a study led by scientists at the University of Gothenburg.
Because of this, the scientists judge recycled plastics unfit for most purposes and a hinder in the attempts to create a circular economy.
Delegates, scientists and health and environmental advocates from around the world are traveling to Nairobi, Kenya for next week’s meeting of the third session of the Plastics Treaty Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-3).
There scientists will urge delegates to heed the latest science showing that because toxic chemicals are used to make all plastics, and plastics will adsorb other chemicals during use, there are no plastics that can be deemed safe or circular.
“Plastic recycling has been touted as a solution to the plastics pollution crisis, but toxic chemicals in plastics complicate their reuse and disposal and hinder recycling,” says Professor Bethanie Carney Almroth, of the University of Gothenburg.
Over 600 chemical compounds identified
In a recently published study in Data in Brief via ScienceDirect, led by Carney Almroth, plastic pellets from plastic recycle plants in 13 different countriesin Africa, South America, Asia and Eastern Europe were found to contain hundreds of chemicals, including numerous highly toxic pesticides.
In total, 491 organic compounds were detected and quantified in the pellets, with an additional 170 compounds tentatively annotated. These compounds span various classes, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, plastic additives.
Present risk for all
There are few regulations on chemicals in plastics, and international trade in plastics waste complicate this issue.
In a correspondence published this month in the prestigious journal Science researchers from the University of Gothenburg, IPEN, Aarhus University, and the University of Exeter noted that: “The hazardous chemicals present risks to recycling workers and consumers, as well as to the wider society and environment. Before recycling can contribute to tackling the plastics pollution crisis, the plastics industry must limit hazardous chemicals.” More than 13 000 chemicals used in plastics with 25% classified as hazardous. Scientists state that “no plastic chemical [can be] classified as safe.”
“Need to phase out harmful chemicals”
Professor Bethanie Carney Almroth brings a clear message to next week’s meeting in Nairobi:
“Numerous studies show that hazardous chemicals can accumulate even in relatively close-loop plastic recycling systems. We need to rapidly phase-out plastic chemicals that can cause harm to human health and the environment.”
LABS AT UC SANTA BARBARA, UC BERKELEY, STANFORD AND U OF VIRGINIA, DISCOVERED AND REPLICATED 16 NOVEL FINDINGS IN SOCIAL-BEHAVIORAL STUDIES USING THE BEST AVAILABLE RESEARCH PRACTICES.
Roughly two decades ago, a community-wide reckoning emerged concerning the credibility of published literature in the social-behavioral sciences, especially psychology. Several large scale studies attempted to reproduce previously published findings to no avail or to a much lesser magnitude, sending the credibility of the findings — and future studies in social-behavioral sciences — into question.
A handful of top experts in the field, however, set out to show that when best practices are employed, high replicability is possible. Over six years, researchers at labs from UC Santa Barbara, UC Berkeley, Stanford University and the University of Virginia discovered and replicated 16 novel findings with ostensibly gold standard best practices, including pre-registration, large sample sizes and replication fidelity. Their findings, published in Nature Human Behaviour, indeed suggest that with best practices, high replicability is achievable.
“It’s an existence proof that we can set out to discover new findings and replicate them at a very high level,” said UC Santa Barbara Distinguished Professor Jonathan Schooler, director of UCSB’s META Lab and the Center for Mindfulness and Human Potential, and senior author of the paper. “The major finding is that when you follow current best practices in conducting and replicating online social-behavioral studies, you can accomplish high and generally stable replication rates.”
Their study’s replication findings were 97% the size of the original findings on average. By comparison, prior replication projects observed replication findings that were roughly 50%.
The paper’s principal investigators were John Protzko of UCSB’s META Lab and Central Connecticut State University (CCSU), Jon Krosnick of Stanford’s Political Psychology Research Group, Leif Nelson at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business and Brian Nosek, who is affiliated with the University of Virginia and is the executive director of the standalone Center for Open Science.
“There have been a lot of concerns over the past few years about the replicability of many sciences, but psychology was among the first fields to start systematically investigating the issue,” said lead author Protzko, a research associate to Schooler’s lab, where he was a postdoctoral scholar during the study. He is now an assistant professor of psychological science at CCSU. “The question was whether past replication failures and declining effect sizes are inherently built into the assorted scientific domains that have observed them. For example, some have speculated that it is an inherent aspect of the scientific enterprise that newly discovered findings can become less replicable or smaller over time.”
The group decided to perform new studies using emerging best practices in open science — and then to replicate them with an innovative design in which the researchers committed to replicating the initial confirmation studies regardless of outcome. Over the course of six years, research teams at each lab developed studies which were then replicated by all of the other labs.
In total, the coalition discovered 16 new phenomena and replicated each of them 4 times involving 120,000 participants. “If you use best practices of large samples, pre-registration, open materials in the discovery of new science, and you run replications with as best fidelity to the original process as you can, you end up with a very highly replicable science,” Protzko said of the findings.
One key innovation the study offered was that all of the participating labs agreed to replicate the initial confirmation studies regardless of their outcome. This removed the scientific community’s customary bias of only publishing and replicating positive outcomes, which may have contributed to inflated initial assessments of effect sizes in the past. Furthermore, this approach enabled the researchers to observe several cases for which study designs that failed to produce significant findings in the original confirmation later attained reliable effects when replicated at other labs.
Across the board, the project revealed extremely high replicability rates of their social-behavioral findings, and no statistically significant evidence of decline over repeated replications. Given the sample sizes and effect sizes, the observed replicability rate of 86%, based on statistical significance, could not have been any higher, the researchers pointed out.
To test the novelty of their discoveries, they ran independent tests on people’s predictions regarding the direction of the new findings and their likelihood of replicability. Several follow-up surveys in which naïve participants evaluated descriptions of both the new studies and those associated with previous replication projects, found no differences in their respective predictability. Thus, the replication success of these studies was not due to them discovering obvious results that would necessarily be expected to replicate. Indeed, many of the newly discovered findings have already been independently published in high quality journals.
“It would not be particularly interesting to discover that it is easy to replicate completely obvious findings,” Schooler said. “But our studies were comparable in their surprise factor to studies that have been difficult to replicate in the past. Untrained judges who were given summaries of the two conditions in each of our studies and a comparable set of two-condition studies from a prior replication effort found it similarly difficult to predict the direction of our findings relative to the earlier ones.”
Because each research lab developed its own studies, they came from a variety of social, behavioral and psychological fields such as marketing, political psychology, prejudice, and decision-making. They all involved human subjects and adhered to certain constraints, such as not using deception. “We really built into the process that the individual labs would act independently,” Protzko said. “They would go about their sort of normal topics they were interested in and how they would run their studies.”
Collectively, their meta-scientific investigation provides evidence that low replicability and declining effects are not inevitable. Rigor enhancing practices can lead to very high replication rates, but exactly identifying which practices work best will take further study. This study’s “kitchen sink” approach — using multiple rigor-enhancing practices at once — didn’t isolate any individual practice’s effect.
Additional investigators on the study are Jordan Axt (Department of Psychology, McGill University of Montreal, Canada); Matt Berent (Matt Berent Consulting); Nicholas Buttrick (Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison), Matthew DeBell (Institute for Research in Social Sciences, Stanford University), Charles R. Ebersole (Department of Psychology, University of Virginia), Sebastian Lundmark (The SOM Institute, University of Gothenburg, Sweden); Bo MacInnis (Department of Communication, Stanford University), Michael O’Donnell, (McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University); Hannah Perfecto (Olin School of Business, Washington University in St. Louis); James E. Pustejovsky (Educational Psychology Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison); Scott S. Roeder (Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina); and Jan Walleczek (Phenoscience Laboratories, Berlin, Germany)
