“All models are wrong, but some are useful.”
—George Box

Box’s quote reflects a deep and uncomfortable truth about science: None of our ideas are perfect, which means they are all destined to be questioned, reinterpreted, and potentially discarded. Although this is the very process that often makes science better in the battlefield of ideas—with the best ideas presumably winning out—it is also one that can generate anxiety and unpleasantness for everyone involved.

Nearly a decade ago, Wil learned that one of his lab’s studies was going to be repeated by another research group. He had an initial wave of panic. The original findings seemed solid, if imperfect, and followed logically from the literature. But he could not rid himself of the nagging feeling: What if the results failed to replicate? What would this mean for his scientific reputation, the careers of his students, and the ideas gained from the work?

He needn’t have worried—the findings were replicated—but his feelings demonstrate how sometimes we as scientists become personally attached to our work and disengaged from the ideals of a dispassionate, objective researcher. Although criticism is the lifeblood of scientific progress, we are ultimately humans who respond emotionally when we feel that our work is under scrutiny or attack.