[native_samples]

Yeah I'm also mystified by that comment. You are correct that smaller P is better. Those near physics level P-values are not totally unheard of for genetics either, because they have very large databanks with hundreds of thousands of data points in them and the ability to do large analyses over them, so they can obtain a lot of statistical power.

[CrazyStat]

Precision in p-values that small is more or less meaningless in almost all cases, because any violation of model assumptions will result in p-value imprecision far greater than 10^-10. p-values are (almost always) approximations based on an approximate model, and the variation between the model and reality is probably more than 10^-10.

Some tiny aspect of the real process that your model falls to capture might mean that that 10^-10 is actually 0.001, and 10^-40 is also 0.001. In complex biological fields it's fair to assume that there are always such tiny aspects.

[native_samples]

You're right. The numbers are too small to be plausible. I read on Scott Alexander's blog about 5-HTTLPR that in genetics they can get very low P values relative to most life sciences, but 10^-40 indeed seems far too low for any plausible experiment. I guess even in particle physics they don't go that low.