> However, if you have an experiment that pulls X from the system, watches Y fail, then readds X in a new way to recreate the system, you can be much more certa

> However, if you have an experiment that pulls X from the system, watches Y fail, then readds X in a new way to recreate the system, you can be much more certain that X influences Y. That becomes a much desired, "elegant" experiment. Yeah, in molecular biology this always seemed to be the most convincing evidence. Deleting a gene and then adding it back. Sometimes going a step further and overexpressing the gene. You can generally publish that data without any statistical analysis. > The later experiment is often harder, and might not even be proposable until you've seen some statistical effect. I think the better journals/reviewers can push back at this step, though: If you don't have a demonstrable mechanism, you can't publish. Don't let people stop at "...this gene is important (p < 0.005)." (I know not all things are as simple as gene deletion and complementation)