LAUSR

Writing a counterpoint to the accompanying commentary seemed at first absurd. Arguing against rigor is likely itself considered to be unscientific. Striving for the absolute best technological, methodological and ethical practices when performing experiments will, of course, increase the likelihood of accuracy and reproducibility. This becomes even more important when performing clinical translational research that directly affects human lives. However, this latest fundamentalist movement, that is reflected in the accompanying opinion, to formalize and vigorously apply scientific rigor has potential long-term unintended consequences to constrain creativity and discovery. These issues go beyond the simple template changes in how US federal grant applications are formatted and the additional requirements for manuscript submissions. The concern about an ‘over-rigorization’ grows if it causes limitations of creative thinking needed to discover new foundational understandings and challenge established dogma. Every experimental design requires assumptions to test a hypothesis that may be proven incorrect. Just as important, it is necessary for science to retain the ability to retrospectively analyze and offer new interpretations of previously published data not flawed in its methodology, but possibly imperfect in its conclusions based on data limitations and models at that time. These issues are briefly discussed below in regards to time, complexity, selection pressures and fears.