I imagine that most scientists are creatures of habit, and some superstition as well. Speaking from experience, I know I have protocols which I've worked with for a decade or more and I'm loathe to change or tweak them. They work, why reinvent the wheel? This same thought process extends to reagents that are typically used in the lab. There were certain manufacturers that I "grew up" using, and remained loyal to that particular brand throughout my graduate and postdoc work. When putting my own lab together, while I was willing to negotiate some* on equipment**, by and large I was more than happy to stick with the "tried and true" microbiological and molecular reagents that I had used for years. For instance, I would never consider buying my restriction enzymes from anywhere but NEB. They work, why switch?

Problem is, projects change, which means conditions change. This point was eloquently brought home to me this past week. We had received some free Taq. We were told that in our system, this Taq would most likely perform better than any other Taq we could find on the market. For general amplifications we use what I would consider a "middle of the line" (in terms of cost) Taq which has worked pretty well in our hands. After all, Taq is Taq, no? Now there were inst . . . More