I'm really annoyed, on behalf of the journalist Charles Piller, about the release date of his book "Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer's." Piller ... presents copious evidence of severe fraud, negligence, and buck-passing in Alzheimer's research. From fabricated images published in major research journals (many of them still unretracted) to data manipulation conducted by pharmaceutical companies to complete negligence on the part of federal watchdogs, Piller's reporting demonstrates indisputably that the field of Alzheimer's research is in sorry shape. Journals ... have proved quite reluctant to retract papers that seem to plainly warrant it, while universities have frequently closed ranks around researchers credibly suspected of fraud rather than engage in prompt and thorough investigations. Journals and individual researchers not only are loath to correct or explain errors but are often unwilling to even respond to basic questions about their work. That's the problem with demanding that people "trust" science just because it calls itself science, or just because it's being conducted by an institution or an individual bearing impressive-seeming credentials. More deference is not the answer, because undue deference lies at the root of almost every major scandal in science. Why should you trust a journal that refuses to correct its errors or a university that protects a star researcher credibly accused of fraud?