I agree with the suggestions at the end but would add one more fundamental recommendation. Part of the problem with science is peer review that is limited to "peers" in the field in question. The problem with such peer review is it is prone to group think, personal political pressure/intimidation and corruption as the "peers" support each other's work regardless of merit knowing that what goes around comes around. The solution to this is to place normal citizens in the review process either before grants are given or in post grant analysis. These folks will not have the expertise to assess every nuance of technique and procedure, but will be able to catch group think that fundamentally doesn't pass the smell test or proposes research that is of highly questionable merit for the investment of public tax dollars. (There is no right to public support of your research despite the entitled attitude held by academics. If you can't convince others that your work has merit to society, then fund it yourself.) As the author suggests, there is a moral culpability for all those involved in a scandal like this. One good solution and way of reinforcing moral behavior is to punish fields that allow such misconduct by massively reducing funding to that field. That gives everyone an incentive to police their colleagues and themselves to avoid such miscoduct.