Chat message

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

1. 2022-01-14 13:25 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Oh, wow - just read through our old Nature rebuttal... Worth a read. [shared file(s): Nature rebuttal.pdf]
2. 2022-01-14 13:27 Edward C. Holmes open
   Yes, very good. Reviewer #2. Who could it be.
3. 2022-01-14 13:27 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Hmmmm. I have a hunch.
4. 2022-01-14 13:29 Kristian G. Andersen open
   We really need to figure out what to do about all of this because I think we're getting to a critical point where these documents _will_ go public so it should come from us and not e.g., DRASTIC or congress. The GOP will take the house and Bob and I will be dragged in front of congress - getting this stuff out before in a way in which we 'control'the narrative will be important. I still think we should talk to Jon about it
5. 2022-01-14 13:39 Edward C. Holmes
   Sorry, but I can't agree to the release of these emails for the reasons I've given before. I think we do nothing. I don't see how DRASTIC could get hold of these. Nature will not allow release of peer review reports.
6. 2022-01-14 13:40 Edward C. Holmes open
   We won't be able to control the narrative. Let's be realistic.
7. 2022-01-14 13:46 Kristian G. Andersen open
   The problem is, it's not a question of whether to release them or not - if congress gets involved we have to hand over _all_ these documents no matter what we or our institutions say. Either we control that release or it'll come via congress later this year.
8. 2022-01-14 13:46 Kristian G. Andersen open
   At that stage it's a legal process
9. 2022-01-14 13:47 Edward C. Holmes open
   Not my institution

Full conversation →