The comment above unnecessarily casts the author in a negative light: > This whole article was a long winded way for the writer to look like a smarty pants …

The comment above unnecessarily casts the author in a negative light: > This whole article was a long winded way for the writer to look like a smarty pants … There are other, simpler explanations; for example, the author might have wanted to write a longer article with detailed metaphors to make the content more approachable. It is clear the author wants to push back on pseudoscientific interpretations of epigenetics. I commend the author on this effort. Criticism (even if perceived as ‘negative’ by some) is important; still, I’d ask that commenters dial back their sense of _certainty_ somewhat. Before assuming some flaw of the author, at least consider that (a) _you_ (and all your preferences about length and style) may not be their target audience and (b) the world of writing has many driving factors —- not all of which involve an author trying to “look like a smarty pants”