Scientific disagreements are very common, as are folks who take these personally. When the ‘facts’ are tenuous, each side claims victory even though there is no resolution. Most of the time, these debates are esoteric. No one (else) cares. 1/ The debates play out, sometimes quite viciously in the pages of scientific journals. “Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics because the stakes are so low.” (Sayre) But we are now in a new reality. The stakes could not be higher. 2/

I'm excited that our community is discussing how to help folks (esp ESIs & their lab members) withstand the effects of Covid19 on their labs' viability. I would like to discuss the role that funding agencies can play to ensure the continued success of our cimmunities 1/ I must confess that I am not an expert in these topics, but this is a discussion we must be willing to have so I’m happy to take a first stab at this, even if I end up making a fool of myself (it wouldn't be thr first time) 2/

I've had some tough conversation with colleagues (esp. junior PIs) over past few weeks that prompted me to write this. My intention is not to offend but to draw attention.

I'm proud of colleagues who pivoted to Covid19 research & published many amazing papers over past year. 1/ But I'm also proud of colleagues who showed kindness to their labmates & tempered expectations about productivity in an already difficult funding climate. Their focus on mental health of their lab is something to be commended. 2/

Having dug a hole for myself on the issue of preprint reviews, I continue to dig deeper. I must confess that a patient friend crystallized my objections to me. I know a lot of people review preprints and papers equally diligently. However, I do not. 1/ I often do not review preprints from an evaluative eye the way I might for a journal. I usually 'review' them purely from the perspective of trying to make constructive suggestions on a story I'm interested in because it is cool and in my field. 2/