An interesting essay in Nature contributes to the growing debate about transparency and replication by noting that legitimate privacy interests remain in play as well. That is, the drive for greater transparency should advance rather than impede contributions to our knowledge base. Of particular note is that the authors "have identified ten red-flag areas that can help to differentiate healthy debate, problematic research practices and campaigns that masquerade as scientific inquiry (see ‘Ten red flags’). None by itself is conclusive, but a preponderance of troubling signs can help to steer the responses of scientists and their institutions to criticism."
As Andrew Gelman notes, "there is a long history of the political process being used to disparage scientific research that might get in the way of people making money. Most notoriously, think of the cigarette industry for many years attacking research on smoking, or more recently the NFL and concussions."