And with that statement you arrive at the crux of the issue. Unless research is subjected to rigid scrutiny, that research cannot truly be deemed 'science'..The public is bombarded with all manner of biased study offered up from industrial and other special interests that are presented as 'science', yet should more correctly be described as sales pitch shrouded with the intimidating veneer of academic respectability. The idea is to browbeat the public into submission, and should they dare express concerns, then denigrate, belittle, and deride them as backward, unsophisticated, foolish modern day Luddites. The charlatans guilty of this need to be exposed for what they are, and the public needs to be reassured that their healthy skepticism is absolutely within the bounds and traditions of authentic science.
Richard P Feynman gave some explanation to this with his 1974 Caltech commencement address:
"But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson Oil doesn’t soak through food. Well, that’s true. It’s not dishonest; but the thing I’m talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it’s a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will—including Wesson Oil. So it’s the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with" --- RICHARD P. FEYNMAN excerpt from Some remarks on science, pseudoscience, and learning how to not fool yourself. Caltech’s 1974 commencement address. The entire address has been republished many times under the title Cargo Cult Science. It may be found in its entirity here: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm