Would empirical data help? (Score 1)

Many of the replies to the question "Do software defects found in later phases of the software development cycle REALLY cost THAT much more than defects found in earlier phases?" use common sense and experience to suggest that this is the case.

But can we rely on common sense and experience? Would a scientific study reveal unintuitive data to suggest otherwise. We all know that people make mistakes, but would an indept study suggest more about:

the factors that cause mistakes?

are the mistakes preventable?

what are the general reasons for mistakes in the various software development phases?

what happens when a mistake is encountered?

how is the cost of the mistake determined?

what are customer expections regarding defects? are certain defects acceptable?

do certain development processes lead to less mistakes?

how many mistakes evolve from poor management?

how many mistakes do test engineers find prior to release?

how many mistakes are found after release?

do software tools aid the development cycle for mistake prevention?

can stringent controls prevent defects/bugs?
if so which costs more? defect resolution or the stringent controls?

whats more important and costs more first to market with bugs or last to market with no bugs?

Finally would anyone care about what data was produced by such a study? How often do we ignore history and continue to make mistakes?