> "authors" who know almost nothing about the papers they've "written" I agree this is quite common at least in the field that interests me: Neurodegenerative

> "authors" who know almost nothing about the papers they've "written" I agree this is quite common at least in the field that interests me: Neurodegenerative diseases. > "True. Mostly because compared to the pharma industry and research foundations..." I don't know, at the same time we would have no medical drugs without these organisms and yet they are vastly inefficient in their resource allocations: Testing drugs that were already tested or testing drugs without any pre-clinical indication they would have any beneficial effect or using animal models like mice, fishes, worms or even worse immortal cells that do not model human anatomy or physiology at all.