Just the fact that so few replications have been published indicates huge cultural problems. When I did biomed, in my tiny area of expertise there had been 1-2 thousand papers published since the 1980s. Out of these maybe 2-3 were close to direct replications. None of those showed the results were reproducible, but no one cared...

Usually there were "minor differences" in the methods so it resulted in stuff like: "Protein P has effect E by acting through receptor R in cell line L from animal A of sex S and age Y when in media M".

However if you changed L, A, S, Y, or M apparently totally different things were going on (there were then supposedly dozens of receptors for each ligand, each receptor having dozens of ligands in different circumstances, etc).

In the end I found that E was nearly perfectly correlated with the molecular weight of P (using data from one of the most cited papers on the topic, in which they specifically claimed there was no correlation with any physical properties of the ligands).

So the effect has nothing to do with specific ligand-receptor interactions at all, but no one cared. Situations like this (with few published direct replications, the ones that are published are contradictory, the results are all being misinterpreted anyway, and everyone just continues on their way when problems are pointed out) are totally standard for biomed. The replication aspect of the issue is really only the tip of the iceberg of problems.