10% success rate suggests there’s some hidden factor they haven’t discovered themselves yet, might influence the success rates of other labs. (assuming of course the claim is not fabricated)
That’s often how it goes. Something doesn’t do what you expect, so you have to keep trying new things until you figure out why it wasn’t what you expect.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
It is notoriously hard to replicate things in labs, especially with material science.
This was attempt to do it within 2 days of the paper being published.
To add to that, the original researchers apparently had 10% successes rate in their lab, they wanted to perfect it before publishing their paper.
Bad luck was that it leaked, so to make sure somebody else doesn’t get credit for their work they published what they had within hours.
It likely will take months before this will be verified.
10% success rate suggests there’s some hidden factor they haven’t discovered themselves yet, might influence the success rates of other labs. (assuming of course the claim is not fabricated)
That’s often how it goes. Something doesn’t do what you expect, so you have to keep trying new things until you figure out why it wasn’t what you expect.