It's really frustrating to watch otherwise capable researchers in the biomedical field flock to use the same black-box metabolic screening systems that Prof. Fleeb and Dr. Pheeble used because, well, everyone uses them.

Of course there are good reasons for this situation. There's a natural wish to use systems that have become accepted in the field, even if for the wrong underlying reasons. And, of course, there's always the issue of finding technicians and postdocs who are willing to understand how a system works, rather than merely pushing buttons in a spirit of blind but easy faith.

The fact is, though, that understanding is optional. A metabolic screening system built for traceability and transparency can be used just as effectively by someone who doesn't know or care how it works. The difference between that and a black-box system (which shares the lack of any requirement for understanding) is that if someone wishes to understand the behind-the-scenes operation of the system, including all corrections, assumptions and calculations, then that understanding is possible.

But it isn't easy to convince scientists to move to transparent, traceable systems. Which is too bad, because important decisions can be made on the basis of data produced in questionable yet untraceable and unauditable ways. Rather, scientists are attracted to the familiar. Here's my take on this herd reaction: