The *best* way would be to do a different experiment with the expectation of getting the same results if the original research was valid and understanding of the studied phenomena good. Then, regardless of whether the second study validates the first one or not, we would actually have more data and better understanding of the issue and problems regarding it's study.

Invalidating shoddy research would be a bonus.

But then you'd have to explain how the drug-resistant bacteria appeared on the hospitals, if it's not due to overuse of drugs. If it is due drugs, then you'd have to explain why it does not apply to factory farms with conditions akin to hospitals.

The best estimates put nuclear way 'dirtier' than say, off shore wind. Sure, it's cleaner than coal or even natural gas, but that nuclear fuel don't mine itself, nor does it enrich itself, not does it transfer itself to the reactor, not does it take care of the decomissioning of that huge pile of contaminated concrete and steel...

Nuclear is in no way or form zero emission power source.

Other problem with nuclear is the enourmous power generating capacity of a reactor: it requires equally enormous backup for the inevidable times the reactor is offline! And since reactors are slow to come online, that backup needs to be something else, like natural gas. Or wind. Or solar.
Think about that, too.

After the oil crisis French goverment went for the nuclear solution without any democratic or parliamentary process whatsoever. Which soon resulted in violent demonstrations etc. The energy production in France is complety controlled (owned and subsidized) by government.

Currently nuclear seem to thrive only in countries where tax payers pay the bill and have no say in the matter...

A better option would be to combine these with something like Aeroscraft cargo blimp to haul 60 tons od stuff in hours (20 -30) to disaster area and then do the delivery by drones.

The stuff could be preassembled kits of food rations, water purification, wide-spectrum antibiotics, perhaps a heater packaged in a light sheltering material with simple, drawn, cuilturally independent instructions in every item.

I'd be much more inclined towards proper, standardized DRM, if the "rights" included my rights, too. The content provider could keep the right to create copies of the content, but I would have the ownership of that particular copy to do whatever I please to do with it. Enjoy, loan, sell, destroy...

Check out Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine: http://www.jnrbm.com/ :-)

Anyway, I was taught early on this is one of the main reasons to attend conferences -- after seeing an interesting presentation (or even poster) about stuff close to yours, you go for a beer or two with the presenter and hear all the failures they suffered and the wrong turns they took on the way. And share your own, too.

The body of science is so much more than just the published papers, you know.

33 or so billion metric tonnes of CO2 annually (assuming all energy comes from this here novelty) requires quite a big hole, doesn't it?

Well no -- if it's for example medical or health care research, then you do have to get explicit, specific, informed concent that can be withdrawn at any time...
There has to be some limits in a civilized society, you know!

I believe there was practically no private research, since Myriad was founded after the gene was already located in chromosome 17 and it was only a matter of time for the teams in different universities to pinpoint the location and find out the sequence. Furthermore, the company was founded by some of the university researchers that took part (well, their labs took part, at least) in the search for the gene.
Myriad was funded to patent the gene, to put it plain and simple. And by holding a patent not just to their gene test, but any BRCA1 sequence test, they have prevented anybody else for figuring out *why* mutations in BRCA1 may cause breast cancer.

You got a lot wrong in your comment, but let's consider only the thing concerning nuclear power generation:
- with all the mining, processing and delivering of fuel plus the ridiculous amounts of concrete required for safe reactor building the CO2e/W of nuclear is approaching that of coal. - nuclear power is generated by huge units, 100's MW, so when they go offline (and they do, eventually) you need a lot of backup power, and it can't be nuclear since it has to be available at moments notice. - there are limited places to build nuclear plants, since they require lots of cool, clean water to operate, and those are becoming rare with global warming I so hope that the luddites would stop pushing for old solutions and would embrace new technology.

Which one you have difficulties with:
- CO2 is a "green house" gas, it traps heat - Humans are pumping it to the atmosphere 40 billion tonnes per year

The logical step from those two to the Antropogenic in AGW is so small and obvious that when Arrhenius figured out the first one and knew the second one 120 years ago, he could make it without any evidence or measurement.
In the realm of physics it's easy to figure things out way before you can get any evidence...

"Rewarding employers" does nothing in the long term, and only 'distorts the markets' in the short term, so it should have never been used, albeit it seems to be the idiocy du jour.
Think about it: if there's no purchasing power, no matter how much the employer is rewarded, there's no cash flow to keep the business viable. On the other hand, if there is purchasing power and thus business, the employer doesn't need subsidies to survive.
The best thing to do to national economy is to tax/destroy wealth at the top and create it at the bottom.
That, and tax/moderate the financial markets regressively, but in relation to time between purchase and sale -- and start from 99.5% or so regressing to 15% in about ten years, forcing investors to care about the long term health of companies and aiming for stable and predictable markets.
Oh, and cut the copyright to 25 years from first publication. But that's negotiable.

Sorry, but just for clarification: are you against roll calls, too? It is "location tracking", after all. RFID is but a mere technical extension of already existing tracking, is it not?

In your ideal world, could I live my life at the same time as a productive member of society and yet completely anonymous to everybody else?

Exactly! This is pretty much what the paternity tests do -- they can rule out paternity 100%, but only give a "good possibility" of fatherhood.
I gather the police will have to have other lines of supporting evidence, too. Which, I assume, are easy to come by if the guy did it. There will be inconsistencies in his story, places he shouldn't have been, places he should have been etc.