A dissenting view from the other answers: **Yes, it is fine to silently correct obvious typos that do not affect the subject matter.**

In non-acadmic contexts, this is pretty much universal practice. The Chicago Manual of Style, for instance, says “Obvious typographic errors may be corrected silently (without comment or sic) unless the passage quoted is from an older work or a manuscript source where idiosyncrasies of spelling are generally preserved.” and I do not know any major style guide that differs from this.

In an academic setting, you should certainly be very careful in judging what’s really a typo, as comments on the question point out.  However, you should usually be well-qualified to judge this, as an academic in a field closely related to that of the writers you’re quoting.

So I see no positive reason to treat the academic case differently from the non-academic.  Scientific accuracy and clarity is paramount; literal typographical fidelity is no more important in academia than in most other fields.

Meanwhile, all the negatives of replicating the typo still apply.  Leaving it in without a “[sic]” is distracting to the reader, and also makes it unclear whether the typo is due to you or the original authors.  Adding a “[sic]” is even more distracting to the reader, is a bit harsh towards the original authors (drawing attention to a trivial mistake they made), and may be read as intentionally disrespectful to them.