Those are super frustrating.

I’m not like… in research or anything, but as a science communicator I really like to understand some of the nuanced stuff that I’m telling people about, and those dead ends are really frustrating because everything sort of hinges on that, doesn’t it? If that blank space is filled by something else the conclusion probably changes.. and that means the way I can talk about it has to change.

I could imagine it being much worse for someone who is publishing or working on a paper for publication. Especially when a lot of people don’t dive that deep and just accept it because the peer review process seems to have also.