This study addresses methodological issues in neuroscience research that are a result of low statistical power. The authors discuss how prevalent this issue is in the neurosciences and explain what consequences this has for the robustness of findings coming out of this field. Those advocating on behalf of animals used in research will be interested to read the authors’ discussion of the ethical implications of this phenomenon given neurosciences’ heavy reliance on animal research subjects.

[Abstract excerpted from original source.]

“A study with low statistical power has a reduced chance of detecting a true effect, but it is less well appreciated that low power also reduces the likelihood that a statistically significant result reflects a true effect. Here, we show that the average statistical power of studies in the neurosciences is very low. The consequences of this include overestimates of effect size and low reproducibility of results. There are also ethical dimensions to this problem, as unreliable research is inefficient and wasteful. Improving reproducibility in neuroscience is a key priority and requires attention to well-established but often ignored methodological principles.”