The application requires researchers to prove that their experiments do not pose unreasonable dangers to the subjects.

The first involved only streptokinase and in 1986 the researchers proved the value of the drug in reducing the death rate from heart attacks.

I therefore think that the original researchers should prove their data to be true rather than everybody else having to prove that it is not.

And given how researchers have proved it, they're right.

Now researchers have proven that unborn crickets can gain a fear of spiders based on their mother's harrowing experiences.

However, the researchers have proved that the concept of using disorienting odors works for repelling mosquitoes.

At the very least, researchers can't prove that one is better than the other.

Now by capturing mothers with suckling babies and making genetic tests on them both, researchers have proved that this is not so.

Others involved the so-called proof-of concept, which means that researchers proved the scientific principle underlying an experiment.

For years, behavioral researchers have been proving that alcoholics can learn to be controlled drinkers using conditioning techniques.