If no one cares whether the authors got it all wrong and "Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc under conditions xyz" should actually be "Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with depressed c-Myc under conditions xyz", then why was this funded?
If someone does care then it should be replicated.
> If someone does care then it should be replicated.
It is tested in other forms, but isn't generally replicated in the sense you seem to think is paramount. Nor should it be. I'll give you a silly example - would you support a project to go back and replicate electromagnetism experiments performed at the start of the century? Say we do repeat Millikan's oil drop experiment and get a different result (which is actually what happened) - does this mean there is a reproducibility crisis in physics? If we don't repeat the exact experiment, does that mean that Millikan shouldn't have received funding? Why is it that replicating the result the way Millikan did it more useful than doing other related experiments with more sophisticated or different apparatus? The latter is actually MORE useful.
>"would you support a project to go back and replicate electromagnetism experiments performed at the start of the century?"
Yes, of course! That is a great idea. Everyone should be doing this experiment in high school or undergrad science class by now. In fact that seems to be a thing:
If no one cares whether the authors got it all wrong and "Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc under conditions xyz" should actually be "Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with depressed c-Myc under conditions xyz", then why was this funded?
If someone does care then it should be replicated.