Has anyone seen this article about KAUST that was published a week ago in the journal Science? It definitely does not give the best view of the university. This article has definitely made more than a few people angry. For me, what is most maddening, is that Science chose to interview people that have either left KAUST or who have never actually worked for KAUST. The interviews of senior professors and administrators that got their big fat oil paychecks and then retired, leaving KAUST when it is just growing, do not accurately represent what is currently taking place at the university. For instance, Jim Luyten, former Center Director of the Red Sea Research Center left KAUST a year ago! For a university that is just three years old, there will be many fluctuations in policy, administration, finance, etc over the course of a year. Why would Science choose to interview a retiree that hasn't worked at KAUST in a year, if not to just try to find negative responses? In addition, Science interviewed KAUST's collaborators such as members from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Personally, I really like Amy Bower, she is a very nice woman, but there have been many issues with collaborators such as WHOI and Science does not delve into these issues. Most notably, many foreign institutes have sought to "collaborate" with KAUST but they consider collaboration to be "KAUST pays for our research and we do whatever we want." It is well known within the scientific community that KAUST has the big bucks. We have the fanciest equipment and up until just a month ago, all sequencing services were provided free of charge. So many "collaborators" around the world have popped up wanting money but then not wanting to actually cooperate with KAUST's terms such as forming partnerships with KAUST PIs or giving back to the community. Don't get me wrong, there are many issues with our new university and there are some days where I am really frustrated and want to get the heck out of here, but there are also many great things going on here and I just think that Science should choose its interviews carefully to really capture the whole picture. I mean if a journal such as Science is biased, what does that mean for our community?