Hmm, interesting. It's all trade-offs, I'd argue. The nonsense with cotton gloves is clear rubbish*, but, there's no question that human skin is FULL of ... we

Hmm, interesting. It's all trade-offs, I'd argue. The nonsense with cotton gloves is clear rubbish*, but, there's no question that human skin is FULL of ... well, everything. Bacteria, "chemicals" (incl. oils), etc. And, skin varies dramatically between people along even "basic" axes like acidity**. Usually, when I work in a lab, I wear gloves not to protect myself, but to protect samples (more accurately, to minimize transfer from myself to said samples, and sometimes even potential transfer between samples etc.). Even the concept of "clean dry skin" can vary markedly between people. This isn't my field at all, so, I'm absolutely not disputing this guidance. I'd follow their recommendations were it relevant. Rather, just raising some points that perhaps others might even correct my thinking on ... I may take a look in the literature at some point to see if there is specific empirical research providing some real strength to this conclusion / guidance. (I see that the NY Times article touches on extraction of DNA, for example, from past handlers / owners / etc. Is this "yet another attempt to _catalog us??_ ... In Soviet Russia, book catalogs you!) * Though, easy to imagine the case for using such gloves - barring experience and better understanding / dissemination of relevant science ** Ugh - "punintended" ... seriously, only caught as I was typing