Here's a research dilemma...I am presently completing a manuscript involving a terrorist attack using a lethal virus. My research was complete and based on the advice of a PhD virologist with 20+ years in bio-research. This week, I ran the key chapters by another friend who is a PhD molecular biologist (professor). Guess what...he disagreed with the methods and conclusions proffered by research source number one. What the hell do I do now? One says the story's premise is both realistic and a serious threat to national security. The second PhD says the crude virus replication laboratory in the story would not produce sufficient quantity of virus for the scope of the terrorist attack and that the method of attack would not result in widespread infection. I'm still waiting for the FBI's Prepublication Review Department to provide feedback. How would you handle conflicting research advice from equally credible sources? edit: curse my dyslexia...the subject should be spelled "dueling Doctors"