I think it's important to note that the timelines given to us by management are given to them by the technical development team. In these cases, the management team is simply relaying the information. When a deadline is not met on time, it is management's job to investigate to see if a delay is justified, and warranted.

If this was a drive-thru at McDonald's, and the cook forgot your pickle, the manager could investigate and take appropriate action. If it happens too many times, you have to get a job at Burger King. Manager's at McDonald's have a good deal of leverage because the understand the job and they can always hire someone else.

Our situation is different. Taylor *is* the company and he and his team are the only ones who really know what is needed to get the job done. Management has no choice but to take them at their word. Obviously, management is also equally powerless to reprimand the team for lateness, and I think most of us would agree the the very idea is ridiculous and disrespectful.

Also, as others have said, this is cutting edge science and there are things that Dr. Taylor doesn't even know until it is tried in practice. As much as others think it is irresponsible for Taylor to underestimate the time needed to complete his work, I think it is equally irresponsible to overestimate. Taylor shouldn't be asked to estimate a timeframe, "and then add another month", just to make sure retail shareholders don't have to endure a slight disappointment. What he should be doing is judging the duration of a milestone based on available information, and providing his best targeted estimate. This represents truly honest reporting of forward looking statements IMO.