When I arrived at Scripps, I knew nothing of molecular biology, having come directly from completing a PhD in Physical Organic Chemistry. Very few other labs could have afforded me the time, or leeway, necessary to cut my teeth in a completely new research area. In this regard, I am very pro-megagroup. In regards to the Science and Nature articles that followed up on the Schultz retractions, they gloss over several key facts that I insisted should be included. The first fact was that Merck?s nearly $500 million acquisition of GlycoFi in 2006 means that there are still viable alternatives to the production of glycosylated proteins; and therefore reason to remain optimistic about the field in general (i.e. fund grants). The second fact was that at least two other Scripps? post-docs, as well as an undetermined number of biomedical companies, began working full-time on reproducing the now retracted papers already in 2004. The third fact is that I never worked on the glycosylation papers directly. My analysis came completely from published papers. When I presented my analysis of the now retracted papers back in the autumn of 2006, I did so against the accumulated backdrop of a minimum of 5-10 vacuous post-doc years from my fellow friends and coworkers. Again, this was in 2006. (In the UK, it would cost ~£600,000 to fund 5 post-doc years.) I am often asked how was I so smart to be able to figure out a problem that escaped so many other, much smarter, people. The answer, as with many scientific breakthroughs, was one of serendipity. While recovering in the hospital after breaking my leg during the last World Cup, two pages from two disparate reports ended-up next to each on my hospital bed. A child would have noticed the similarities. When I did go and present my analysis, I did so repeatedly, and I did so to no fewer than 30 former and current Scripps co-workers. These individuals would go on to tell other individuals. By my assessment, the flaws in these two retracted papers were already pervasive in the community by the end of 2006. I would continue to present the same analysis at international conferences over 2007-08. In regards to the JBC paper that we did eventually get published, the manuscript began its life as a communication to The Journal of American Chemical Society, which was submitted on February 7, 2009. This initial manuscript was rejected without review. Similar treatment would befall our manuscripts at 6 other journals. I would have also hoped that the key scientific aspects of my 2006 analysis, or our 2009 JBC paper, would have been found to be more in-line with Nature's mission of reporting ??issues concerning science.? This is because few other retracted papers can lay claim to monetary values approaching half a billion dollars, and therefore it is my opinion that Science and Nature?s readers, many of whom referee important papers, would have benefited more from an in-depth analysis of these retracted papers. Specifically, what was the key evidence offered that the referees from two of our top journals found so seductive. Since this has not been the case, it seems only right to again attempt to resolve such scientific issues in the scientific literature.