Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Rethinking the scientific method in the age of AI

Nature Reviews Bioengineering volume 4, pages 2–3 (2026)Cite this article

Subjects

An Author Correction to this article was published on 25 November 2025

This article has been updated

Artificial intelligence might reshape the approach to science, from generating concepts and hypotheses to designing experiments, analysing data and publishing findings. However, it might also introduce risks around data integrity, reproducibility, accountability and bias. Here we provide practical guidance on how to responsibly integrate artificial intelligence into the research pipeline.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Change history

References

  1. Ogunniye, G. & Hana, A. Research integrity in the era of generative AI: a perspective. UKCORI https://go.nature.com/47z7KSR (2025).

  2. Naddaf, M. How are researchers using AI? Survey reveals pros and cons for science. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00343-5 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Resnik, D. B. & Hosseini, M. The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool. AI Ethics 5, 1499–1521 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Woodhams, J., Parry, J. & Scott, J. Embracing AI with integrity. UKRIO https://go.nature.com/4oKX09m (2025).

  5. National Academy of Medicine. An Artificial Intelligence Code of Conduct for Health and Medicine: Essential Guidance for Aligned Action. https://doi.org/10.17226/29087 (2025).

  6. Blau et al. Protecting scientific integrity in an age of generative AI. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 121, 1–3 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thelwall, M., Lehtisaari, M., Katsirea, I., Holmberg, K. & Zheng, E. Does ChatGPT ignore article retractions and other reliability concerns? Learn. Publ. 38, e2018 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Moons, K. G. M. et al. PROBAST+AI: an updated quality, risk of bias, and applicability assessment tool for prediction models using regression or artificial intelligence methods. BMJ 388, e082505 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Collins, G. S. et al. TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ 385, e078378 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors used Zoom AI Companion during drafting sessions to assist in the summary of notes from sessions and action items for authors. The authors also used ChatGPT 5-Auto to shorten and condense draft sections and for brainstorming, followed by discussions among authors. Our workflow was organized and aligned with consideration of the research data lifecycle (for example, the Biomedical Data Lifecycle (https://datamanagement.hms.harvard.edu/)).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. G.E.R.N. Research Center for Tissue Replacement, Regeneration & Neogenesis, Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center-Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany

    Bernd Rolauffs & Melanie L. Hart

  2. Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nagoya University, Tokai National Higher Education and Research System, Nagoya, Japan

    Ryuji Kato

  3. Maidstone Consulting Group, Boston, MA, USA

    Corinna Raimondo & Mary C. Walsh

Authors
  1. Bernd Rolauffs
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ryuji Kato
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melanie L. Hart
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Corinna Raimondo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mary C. Walsh
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the original draft, writing of the manuscript, review, editing and supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary C. Walsh.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Related links

Federal sponsors: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-132.html

Guidance from universities: https://www.harvard.edu/ai/research-resources/

Guidelines on expectations: https://osp.od.nih.gov/policies/artificial-intelligence/

Mandates on the use of AI: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-081.html

Publishers: https://www.nature.com/nature/editorial-policies/ai

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rolauffs, B., Kato, R., Hart, M.L. et al. Rethinking the scientific method in the age of AI. Nat Rev Bioeng 4, 2–3 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44222-025-00386-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44222-025-00386-3

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Careers

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Careers newsletter — what matters in careers research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Careers