"For one thing, basic science studies are rarely "blinded" the way clinical trials are. That is, researchers know which cell line or mouse got a treatment or had cancer. That can be a problem when data are subject to interpretation, as a researcher who is intellectually invested in a theory is more likely to interpret ambiguous evidence in its favor.The problem goes beyond cancer.-On Tuesday, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences heard testimony that the number of scientific papers that had to be retracted increased more than tenfold over the last decade; the number of journal articles published rose only 44 percent."-This is precisely my point. As the article goes on to mention, it goes beyond the medical/biology field. For the layman, this translates into, "if I do not have the ability to verify their results, and I can not take them at their word, why should I believe anything that they say? More importantly, if I can't trust the people doing research, such as the medical and pharmaceutical companies, how can I trust my doctor?"-Keep in mind that lawmakers pass laws based on this as well. There was a woman recently that was charged with murder because she refused to give her son Chemotherapy. Given the state of cancer research, can we blame her?