Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis?

A thorough, albeit too gentle, appraisal of the NAS report has been provided by Daniele Fanelli, April 19, 2018, on his blog at http://danielefanelli.com/Blog.html . Fanelli, in essence, disagrees with virtually all the major novel claims of the NAS report, while he supports all the unoriginal claims that most statisticians have long supported. The report is a betrayal of scholarship and those of us who belong to the organization. It was prepared by two historians with no credentials whatsoever in subject, shows little understanding of many of the topics on which it makes recommendations, and underwent no peer review by competent statisticians. It never would have been accepted in its present form by any scientific journal or other outlet with high, objective standards.

Perhaps both Fanelli and the NAS authors play a disingenuous political game; it would be a disgrace if the crisis narrative were to be appropriate by conservatives with liberals trenching under 'no-crisis'. Hope this does not happen and that we can discuss the crisis openly and pro-actively. See my comments under Fanelli's piece: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/08/1708272114