I think there&#x27;s definitely a cultural problem where the outcome of an experiment is associated with the reputation of the scientist who performed it. We see this in the bias to publish only positive results - as though if an experiment did not make findings of significance it is a failing of the scientist who performed it - and we see this in the reluctance of many scientists to investigate that which would be very surprising if found to be true.<p>The NASA research into the EmDrive is an excellent example of this. The discovery of a method of propulsion which does not consume onboard mass yet achieves energy efficiencies greater than that of a photon rocket would be extremely surprising, which makes it all the more important that apparent effects such as these are investigated. The correct response on seeing an unexpected experimental result is not to ignore it or to assume the experiment is wrong (although that should be treated with a high probability), but to report it and to systematically investigate the discrepancy until either the unexpected result is confirmed with a degree of evidence commensurate with its unexpectedness or the error is discovered. Extreme skepticism can be equally as bad as extreme gullibility, and it is extremely discourteous to imply or to assume the existence of fraud, or to attack the character of the researcher unless there is overwhelming evidence supporting such an aspersion. Even if it might by probabilistically justified to promote the possibility of fraud on the part of the scientist to the most likely explanation for an unexpected result, this has negative externalities on entire scientific fields and forces researchers to &quot;stake their reputations&quot; on publishing surprising results, which is just the sort of perverse situation we should strive to avoid.