Thread by @dasingleton

Interesting thread/comments, but I think it misses something important. It is of course true that science criticisms should be professional and not cruel.

But the very worst, most devastating criticism is the one that no one tells you about.

I have so many stories. 1/n

https://twitter.com/jenheemstra/status/1143824625895452672

At a long prior version of the GRC I’m at now, I recall sitting in the rental car of an old friend and famous chemist, drinking beer, while he alternately expressed his pain and sadness and the hurtful effects of his NIH grant being turned down. This was not because of any flaw

in the science - that was indisputably terrific - but because of the criticism that he was not giving enough credit and referencing to a previous researcher. I had been on that Study Section. The criticism had been floating around but “kind” and shy people had not told my friend

until it killed his NIH grant. The criticism was arguably incorrect and unfair, and I certainly don’t think my friend had intentionally slighted anyone, but the point is that it would have been the easiest criticism in the world to address, IF someone had just told him.

Story #2. Long ago we had a faculty candidate from a famous lab, presenting the results from well-known project in the lab. The candidate presented the results strongly promoting the lab’s “party line” but there was broadly known criticism of the lab’s line, at least outside the

lab. The candidate’s presentation and response to some questions made him look naive. With a measured presentation, recognizing the criticism (which you can only do if someone has told you the criticism), I think he may have gotten the job. He didn’t.

Story #3. A paper came out in JACS in the early 2000’s, where the authors had seen some weird results. Perhaps in understandable desperation, they proposed an explanation that was simply impossible. I saw this when I read the paper. Now I have often in my career written authors

to tell them of errors, perhaps as much as anybody, and the responses are very mixed, sometimes terrific (Sharpless was the best), sometimes considering me rude, but for unremembered reasons I didn’t write these authors. Fast forward several years and a series of JACS papers and

a series of grad students’ careers, and perhaps the PI has so bought in to the impossible explanation that when I finally gave them my criticism, they ignored it. One more paper, and I had to publish a paper pointing out the problem, burning the papers and theses. Hurt feelings

are sad, but this was a real tragedy.

Story #4. I only found out about a criticism of one of my papers that was going around, that the results were all due to numerical error, by odd chance when adjudicating reviews on another paper. The criticism was not correct but it was

pretty believable, and I think it hurt me and a field. No one ever said a word to me directly. After finding out about it, I could address it in grant proposals, papers and talks.
Point: it can help scientists to transmit criticisms to them, even if the criticisms may be wrong.

Story #5. Just the night before last I at the GRC I did a “This is more of a comment than a question” and pointed out a likely error in the interpretation of data. These days that is virtually forbidden, and there is no way to make it entirely pleasant, but the person responded

very very well. Rather than being hurt, a top scientist recognized that getting it right to help guide future work was most important.

Be nice, yes, be nice. But don’t shut up, don’t be ambiguous in your criticism, don’t be afraid to question things. That is real kindness.