Admitting you had a practical session for which you and most of other teams obtained the opposite of the expected results (for instance, you're following the conversion of pyruvate into lactate with LDH by observing the oxydation of NADH with the variation of optical density through the time, then add an inhibitor in a second experiment and get a greater variation of the OD with the inhibitor or with lower concentration of pyruvate than without an inhibitor, an enzyme or with higher concentration of pyruvate), how would you write your report/paper with such unreliable datas?

Do you ask a hypothetical team for which it worked fine? Do you insert a meme in the results section? Do you look for a proper study to get proper results (if yes, any suggestion?)? Is there any magical trick?

> It's unlikely that the way we manipulate are the cause of this shit, most of teams did fail as well, the asshole we have as a professor as well (before saying he doesn't get why and leaving us with our shit).