I visited one when I was in Seattle. My answer - it was too expensive to buy anything. Yes, cute but I would not use it. (Yes, I am the guy who brings his own lunch to work..)

It's Chamberlin's "Method of multiple working hypotheses". The listed hypotheses, however, do not seem to be scientific (falsifiable), and thus irrelevant for discussion. How can one falsify this one ": a lab did routine gain of function testing and became just the latest of many labs all over the world to have an accident."? Propose experiments to test/falsify the hypothesis if you are proposing hypotheses.

I am surprised by the reaction that it is ok that papers get retracted, this is how science works. Well, no. Science works by all co-authors, especially the lead author, checking all the details of experiments and insisting, when necessary, to perform experiments/analyses again and again. Yet, because of pressures to publish and the trend to have labs with tens of people, it is nearly impossible to check results of your peers. Another issue is the expertise and difficulty in understanding each other's results. I am a faculty member and I am very worried of publishing results that turn out to be unreproducible. This is why everybody in my lab, including myself, must show thorough analysis of results, including all controls, and repeat the analysis/experiments several times with alternative assumptions/methods. Yes, this makes us "slow" lab with publishing relatively slowly, and many people cannot work in my lab because of this "scrutiny". But the alternative is not acceptable, I think. So, it is not ok that a Nobel prize winner retracts the paper because of lack of appropriate oversight of experiments done in her lab. What if that paper was used to secure multi-million dollar grant? Should the grant be "returned"?

Not true. I am one of those professors who has been pain in the butt for many - in the department and other units. Yes, it was a split decision in the department for my tenure but everybody else up the chain of command supported me. You do have to be reasonably successful for that (papers, grant money). Otherwise, of course you get booted out. For me, tenure protects me against the system, so I can state when faculty or administration does wrong things. Or simply when I disagree scientifically.