A good working definition of a good researcher, to me, is something like "strong opinions, loosely held". I don't think Cuddy, or anyone else, deserves to be d

A good working definition of a good researcher, to me, is something like "strong opinions, loosely held". I don't think Cuddy, or anyone else, deserves to be dragged through the mud because their idea turns out not to hold up. That happens all the time, and it's not a bad thing at all. You start to deserve that dragging more when you become too attached to your pet theory and cease to be able to drop it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You really deserve it when you use what political capital you've acquired to stomp on your critics despite the fact that they're actually right and you're actually wrong. What's interesting here is that a lot of the Sayre's Law-type political machinations are taking place on a much broader stage than normal. If someone was to go after my work with this kind of exposure, you bet I'd be defensive too. It's entirely possible to have a fair and neutral conversation about research practices without shanking someone's reputation because it seems like the field needs a sacrificial lamb this week. Nobody wins, and certainly no good research is advanced, when the knives come out like this with no evidence of actual malfeasance. (And, frankly, even when there is evidence of malfeasance. like with the STAP controversy, which lead to at least one actual death.)