My comment, the question of research standards in my research, because we work with animal experiments and that needs a lot of planning. So we don't really have the situations that the video records where you could do some more experiments to strengthen your study because you don't just do another experiment with animals. That's not how it works. We have to be very careful in how we plan the study. A very important aspect is to maintain research standards in studies with animals and also in other lab studies, is to have a good practice of randomizing, of being blinded when you interpret the results, etc.. Well, my field is about microbiology and molecular microbiology, in particular. If you are claiming to have proof on molecular mechanism, you have to be very careful, at what level are you talking about? Are you talking about the phenotype, protein, RNA, DNA? So have to confirm all levels. If you want to make strong conclusion, if you want to establish a molecular pathway, you have to make sure that you are claiming the DNA is okay, you have expression at an early level and production of protein and finally the phenotype. So the highest standards would be to confirm all the way the steps before I make a strong conclusion. To make sure that you have information from all these different steps? Exactly. From a PhD student point of view, there will always be some offers that are tempting when you are about to finish the degree. If you want to keep a healthy relation with your supervisor, and if you already have, it's a good start to maintain a good and healthy relation with your PhD supervisor. A good example would be to maintain a frank, open conversation about all the possibilities. I think if you chose to do all your PhD, track with your supervisor or already have some some trust in each other, so probably he or she will be open and understand that we're looking for different position or more advanced techniques or different lab. It's normal for all the supervisors also look to the post-docs in different labs. It's perfectly normal. Just maintain your supervisor informed. You'll be all right. I think, as a supervisor, I have to be aware of that. We always have different interests to some extent. In the beginning of a PhD, we are really on the shared path, we will work together towards one goal, which is a successful research project and a PhD in the end. But when the PhD is approaching the end, it's natural that the student will be thinking about, perhaps at least, this is where tension may start to arise because there are many possible tensions, I think. One is the student is thinking of going somewhere else and I think I have invested so much in training the student it would be very nice if they stayed for another couple of years to do their postdoc. But the tension could also be the opposite, actually. I think the students should go somewhere else to do something else, and the student is not really keen on moving somewhere else because this has been going very well and it would be comfortable to continue to do some more research in this field in an environment where one is feeling happy and secure. I think, as you said, trust is really important, and trust is something you have to build from the beginning. If you haven't to be able to trust, and you come to the third, fourth year of the PhD, then I think the problems that we see here is almost unavoidable. It's a little too late to do something about them. I agree. Well, if the student and the supervisor feel comfortable, I would advise to try and go in publisher reprints of the data they already have with the interpretation of the data, of course, and because it's not fun, the student will have a proof of piece or her work that can be used for curriculum purposes, and they could still add more data in the final version. So I think everybody will be more or less happy. I think, having come to the point where they are, it's a difficult place to solve this, because the student now very clearly needs this paper in this condition and there isn't much of a way around it. I think the best thing they can do here is that they sit down and go through how much they can tone down the claims in the paper, and it's still published as is, and then they both go on with their lives and accept that this was a learning experience.