I do not need someone to tell me how to think. Usually, if they are not willing to share the RAW DATA, they are trying to hide something.
Having published a few scientific research results over the years, I understand the importance of peer review. I am also painfully aware of how you are required to slant the last summary paragraph to please the people who funded your research.
Most people only read the summary and ignore the technical details. This is where you use phrases like "perhaps", "it is possible", "this may indicate", and other weasel words.
A scientist will never risk his reputation by falsifying the actual raw data. However, because of political reasons, that same scientist may imply the results that the funding organizations desired.
Understand?