In approaching how the grotesque is--or should be--situated within contemporary science (biology) education practices, Weinstein and Broda undertake a passionate reclaim of an education that is at the same time scientific, critical, and liberatory. However legitimate, their work offers more than they probably could have anticipated: It exemplifies how the textual structure of a research article can be such as to "tip-off" readers about how it is supposed to be understood. In this way, what one learns from reading the manuscript is grounded on the way the authors examine the data presented. That is, the findings are not intrinsic to the materials collected, but constructed within the analyses that precede/follow the account of each one of the four "specimens" reported. Therefore, the present commentary seeks to re-consider the original study from an alternative perspective, one that challenges its seemingly objective (re)construction of facts by placing emphasis on how the text contains instructions for its own interpretation and validation. Ultimately, the purpose here is to describe and discuss the interpretive and validation work that is done by this discursive mechanism of self-appraisal rather than discredit the two authors' initiative.