> The window quibble, the incubator gap, and the replication protocol do not touch the central, uncontested fact that chance contamination plus observational curiosity gave medicine its first antibiotic.

Personally for me, while less important, I really appreciate the investigation into the narrative.

I agree that the science is more important and the results don't care about the story.

The balance is that we don't need to go around correcting everyone, but knowing more about the details of the story is worth my time in reading this piece. I think the article strikes the right tone.

To be anal about being anal, the article doesn't preclude Fleming's account. It argues that it's unlikely, but countless highly improbable things are happening every second. On this topic somehow Ancient Egyptian poultices (and in cultures onward - though they are the oldest recorded account) even used moldy bread to treat bacterial infections, somehow stumbling onto genuine antibacterial aspects for an absurdly counter-intuitive treatment that has a real effect. However it was initially discovered back then, let alone replicated and confirmed, must have been through an unimaginably improbable series of events. Yet it happened. That's rather the story of humanity.