What ticks your box.

You said

"Team G seems to have a high opinion of themselves and they can easily point faults at others"......but "Team G are several rungs down the ladder than those who they criticize".

This is a opinion and we have given you a gun and you take pot-shots (is it wise to shoot you arms supplier :-)) but why do you look up to any lab and put it on a pedestal
Is it the number of Nature/Science/Cell papers? (The person above has a point). Their altmetrics and media attention. The influence/reproducibility of their work

Is it the ability to deliver/deliver ideas that become MS treatments? (The person above doesn't have a leg to stand on I'm afraid).

Is it their budget? 

(One lab MS spent more on peptides for one experiment than my total years budget) 

I guess personal experience is key....if you have a good experience/outcome, you are going to think the person treating you is ace. Cast that aside we know that...

So what makes a lab worth putting on a pedestal? (You can put concepts rather than specifics)

P.S. It is usually possible to find fault with any piece of work 
If we said everything was great we would be the same as many other MS blog sites.....No one is above critisism including ourselves, but it helps if it is constructive rather than some mindless rant that gets you in spam. It helps if it is based on correct information.

Should we burst any bubbles?

Labels: