There’s a current trend called bias-free research, which really saddens me, which is as its name suggests, it sounds as though it’s really good, but actually it’s not. ((Naive Belief)) It suggests that you don’t have a hypothesis in case you get proved wrong, whereas I subscribe to Karl Popper, who said that science had to have a falsifiable hypothesis. You have to have something to be tested. And I think the biggest mistake is to get so bedazzled by the very awesome techniques that we have, thinking that just by producing data, you can actually produce understanding, and I don’t think that’s the case.