So what you are saying is that studies funded by drug companies can find results that the drug companies do not approve of. Doesn't that mean that the Science behind the studies is sound and objective, while the larger corporate body is what perverts the results? How does that contribute to your statement that scientists are self-interested jerks?

Since you bring up the topic of kids being taught about an oncoming ice age, you might be interested to read a modern interview with the scientist whose work was the basis of the media-led "global cooling" campaign of that time period: Q&A: Dr. Stephen Schneider - One of the world's leading climatologists discusses the line between science and activism .

A simple mistake which was later corrected, but now gets to appear in every anti-climate-change debate as proof that all climate scientists are dumb and shouldn't be trusted.

So basically at this point they have a rough idea that maybe vasopressin is involved in social interaction, though dissecting a lot of dead marmosets is a lot easier than being able to dissect a lot of dead married people. That seems like a difficult problem to solve. How would you even phrase that question? "Hi, I noticed that your husband of 34 years just died. Mind if we cut up his brain?"

It's too bad the articles doesn't mention how the test subjects were selected, or how different socioeconomic/childhood qualities may have affected the test subjects. Did the men have parents that stayed married their whole life? Were the ones that had a problem with relationships come from divorced families?