Then why not describe the novel techniques you developed to complete the research in the paper? Any process that is claimed to require special abilities is actually one the needs training.
Because no one cares. The funding model for science in the US encourages each lab to find a "niche," an approach or an experimental model unique to that lab, defended by a barrier of custom-fabricated apparatus or years-long technique development. No other lab can afford the loss of productivity associated with that kind of investment, to say nothing of the direct expense.
This is also the reason it's hard to take the reproducibility project very seriously: if you're engaged in a project whose thesis is that many experiments are not reproducible, and you're not getting the same results as a subject paper, what's your interpretation? It could be that the original paper was a statisitical fluke; It could be that you need another six months practicing the technique to get it right.