There are reasons why science is not fully trusted and why healthy skepticism and critical thinking are essential. In spite of professional standards, claims of objectivity, and the peer review process, the conduct of science can be biased. All experts are not the same, nor do they submit their work to the same scrutiny. Knowing the source of funding can be important in evaluating scientific claims. For example, the Harvard researchers who made claims in the late 1960s about the problems with dietary fat, leading the nation away from perceiving sugar as one of the main causes in health problems, were funded in part by the sugar industry. The authors did not reveal their funding source to the New England Journal of Medicine, where their influential article appeared. Their article shaped a generation of changes in eating patterns that appears to have fostered higher use of sugar, now widely implicated as a source of the rise in obesity and diabetes. Stories such as this one fuel suspicion ─ but also lead to further safeguards in the scientific process. Funding disclosures, although not required five decades ago, have since been made compulsory.