|(Slide presentation here)|
The answer, so universal that it's a cliché, is transparency:
researchers should make all of their methods and data freely available. This would allow the more rapid correction of faulty work—and would also encourage researchers to be more careful in the first place. [Virginia professor Brian] Nosek has created a free online resource called the Open Science Framework that is designed to allow scientists to make their hypotheses, methods, computer code and data freely available. For its part, Johns Hopkins University is pioneering a program that verifies exciting results from lab studies before those findings get passed along to biopharma companies.Results of biomedical experiments should indeed be regarded with a great deal of skepticism, but let's put this in perspective: these are flaws of hard science conducted in laboratories, the problems have been recognized, and solutions are being offered.
Contrast the above with the even less rigorous methods of climate scientists,
But then again, I'm no scientist.