I respect the soft sciences. They ask questions to which we need answers. They may sometimes fall short or lack rigor but it's not like we have an alternative w

I respect the soft sciences. They ask questions to which we need answers. They may sometimes fall short or lack rigor but it's not like we have an alternative way to address those issues. At the same time I am disturbed by a soft scientist recommending basement chemistry as a remedy for publication bias. YouTube has already inspired a generation of basement chemists making bromine tubes or dipping things in hydrofluoric acid. It is difficult and expensive to safely set up a residential space for chemical experimentation. It is also almost impossible to know everything required without already having become both an academic and having been involved in the construction of a university lab, at which point you no longer need to set up in your basement. Where does your drain go? Where will you store chemicals you can't dump in the drain? What's the drain pipe made of? Will your air conditioning overwhelm your ventilation hood? Could your return duct spill fumes into the main living space? Is all your electrical and ventilation equipment explosion proof? Deionized water, PPE, emergency shower, cleaning protocols... the list just goes on and the requirements are written in blood. Even in a fully equipped space with a trained staff chemistry is inherently risky. It really shouldn't be performed in a building where people have beds. Botany, entomology, astronomy, geology, sure. All these fields just need more eyes on them. Perhaps biochemistry if you are rigorous about never using volatile reagents, sure. But we don't have much real use for basement chemists screwing around with basement chemistry.