Determining the "state of scientific knowledge" is fairly straightforward from the angle of the standard view of science. Scientific knowledge is more or less dictated by nature: researchers pose questions and carefully design and carry out experiments, to which nature then responds with a loud and clear Yes or No. Uncertainty exists only in areas where not enough research has been done yet. A lack of transparency because of contradictory scientific results is not expected because nature is the same everywhere: researchers will always and everywhere generate the same results; if they don't, someone is making mistakes. However, the actual practice of scientific research shows another image. Certainly scientific controversies are the rule rather than the exception at the cutting edge of research. And yet this does not automatically lead us to conclude that one of the research groups involved must be acting in bad faith. Apparently, we assume in practice that nature does not dictate unambiguously what the response to a particular examined research question is.