Why question greatness?

Basically, in addition to the mortal drawbacks of the hired help, another annoyance that I must face as the world’s greatest biologist is the questioning by others who wish they held my title. This often happens when I apply for grants or submit manuscripts for publication. Basically, one of these individuals has nit-picky questions about my methods, or my proposed data analysis, or how my project will advance the “science” of the species. Ridiculous! If these so-called “reviewers” don’t recognize the expertise that has gone into my work, then it’s obvious that they shouldn’t really be in a position to judge the worth of any other scientist, and certainly not me. And there are several reasons why I should not have to justify my proposed research to anyone. First, I select only like-minded people for the privilege of collaborating with me, and so by association they must be good scientists and obviously have more merit than other biologists who rely primarily on peer-reviewed literature. And B) I would never do anything that would harm an animal or its habitat, so there is no need to conduct background research on earlier HEWO studies to see how they gathered their data. Someday, grant agencies will catch on to the fact that, basically, they can learn a lot from me once they allow me to research the topics that are important to me. Furthermore, the aforementioned research will prove highly attractive for publication, if I deign to submit my manuscripts. Basically, the scientific community would benefit greatly from both my vision for the world and the efforts of my small cadre of collaborators, if they would only let me! In the meantime, I will control my frustration and transfer those bad energies into over-simplified explanations of how my research furthers my quest to save the planet.