What does your primary advisor think?

What do you mean by "too risky"?

Bryan - my primary was not at the presentation but my co-advisor was. I haven't talked with either about this. It would feel weird to bring them into this, it would indicate that potentially I couldn't manage my own grievances, but maybe that is my pride speaking.

Buffy - I have edited to mean experimentally risky i.e high chance of failure. Some of these risks can by slightly managed through tweaking the experiment design (which I discussed in the talk), but most come with the overarching research question and are inherent in the research question.

@Tom: “it would indicate that potentially I couldn’t handle my own grievances.” It is only natural to speak with your PI/Co-PI first. Taking matters into your own hands by confronting other PIs without letting your own boss know strikes me as a bad cowboy idea. I’d consider next steps after having a calm chat with your boss first.

@gnometorule ok thanks for this viewpoint.

Just like any responses to reviewers, you need to judge whether the comments are valid. Many comments are no more than brain farts. Some comments may save you time; e.g., the research aim/question is old. In your case, it's possible that there is a 'war' between groups/individuals. Some academics like to cause 'trouble' to show off. In both cases, you are just collateral damage or a punching bag.

@Prof.SantaClaus Thanks. In my case I didn't really find much of the critisism constructive so there was few useful things I could take from it. I agreed with some aspects of the critisism (such as the risk) but this wasn't new as Id spent a good part of the talk about the risks and how to best manage them. I do wonder if there is something more to it going on but I am too new to the group (and probably too socially naive) to know the if there are warring factions.

It's too late now, but when someone addresses you with valid criticism on something you have no control over, perhaps the best thing to say is "thank you, I will discuss that with [whoever's responsibility it is]". If you agree with the criticism then sometimes it's appropriate to say so, too - something like "yes, there is a fair chance the experiment won't succeed, but we have considered many options and this experiment seems to be the only way to answer our research question".

Always better to get hard (even harsh) questions within your research group or institution before getting them standing in front of an audience at a conference. A good, healthy research group should behave this way - ask the hard questions now, get the best results later.

Could you clarify how the "punching down" occurred? From your question text is honestly not clear that it occurred at all (though it certainly is possible). Any response needs to take that into account.

@KonradRudolph The senior members critiqued OP's experiment proposal when they should have used their senior positions to support her instead of punch down on her.

@John Factual criticism isn’t “punching down”. On the contrary, it is supporting OP (if done constructively). And while I won’t pretend that the difference in seniority plays no role in such interactions in research, it is obviously a fundamental necessity that senior colleagues are permitted to offer criticism to junior scientists. Science cannot work without it.

Where were your advisors ? It was their job to defend the experiment, not yours. As answered below, don’t take it personally.

@KonradRudolph The problem is that "constructiveness" is something that senior people use to shield themselves from criticism of punching down. What we need is more equitable representation of junior members in decision making, as it is now OP's only recourse is to go to the University's HR department.

There is no such thing as punching down. What you experienced was harsh factual criticism.

Just to be clear: does "experimentally risky" mean there's a high probability of not producing useful results, or does it mean there's a health and safety problem?

@John_Krampf What are you talking about? “more equitable representation of junior members in decision making”? — the criticism isn’t coming from decision-makers, it’s coming from uninvolved researchers. There’s no indication here of un-equitable representation. There’s no indication that the HR department should get involved (to do … what, exactly?). There’s no indication that anybody is “shielding” their own bad behaviour. What OP has described is a completely regular (albeit admittedly very uncomfortable) seminar (or similar) where colleagues are explicitly invited to provide feedback.

@Konrad Rudolph If the critisism was constructive then that would have been ofcourse okay. But in this case it was a pile-on on concerns that could have been brought up earlier during the planning phase of the project (1-2 yr lead-up time with these senior academics somewhat involved) and before my position was advertised. The question I asked myself before writing 'punching-down' was whether the same critisism would have been given had my PI presented. Im certain the answer is 'no'. The only real difference between my talk and what had been proposed earlier was the level of detail

@JMERICKS Of course, there is punching down. Criticising risk may sometimes be appropriate and factual, or else it may be a way for the critic saying "This is a project that I should be doing; and if not I, then nobody should be doing it, certainly not you." Seen too many of these.

@Tom Don’t be so sure that your PI wouldn’t have faced very similar criticism — it happens, and it’s similarly uncomfortable. But when you’re saying that some of the same PIs were already involved in the planning phase and didn’t voice criticism then, well, that’s a concern. Thanks for clarifying. Of course maybe the level of detail really made a difference for the criticism but, from what you’re saying, it doesn’t sound like it did. Incidentally, I’ve actually been in almost the exact same situation before and it purely sucked, so I feel you.

It would be punching down if the criticism was directed at OP personally. If this is a project that these senior people had a problem with in general, they are probably going to criticize it at every possible opportunity and at every stage of the process. OP basically inherited a project that some seniors don't like and don't support. That just happens sometimes, in just about all institutional settings, and they shouldn't take it personally.