After reading part of chapter two, it surprised me when I came across the third section. I have always thought that scientists where moral people who gained knowledge through studies, not back up previous knowledge with only supporting studies. Taubes says, at the bottom of page 24, “Believing that your hypothesis must be correct before all the evidence is gathered encourages you to interpret the evidence selectively.” So the problem falls on the preconceived notions of the scientists. If they have too much invested in their hypothesis, they will feel obligated to show evidence supporting their theory instead of find out the truth. It is also possible that a scientist will discredit another simply because there information doesn’t match up. I feel that there should be some sort of moral code for scientists to rely, that way they are forced to explore all possible solutions and the public isn’t given incorrect information. Scientists need to start working together to figure out the problem instead of fighting. Clearly if something has two sides, then neither side is one hundred percent correct and there has to be a compromise or collaboration until something else is discovered that is correct. The public has to be very careful about what they believe. How do we know who is being thorough with their investigation and who is just choosing information that fits?