This is a dangerously naive attitude. First, why is “non-” every occupation you cited, more trustworthy? Seriously, lawyers? Try satisfying them when you submit an application for approval for the ethical use of human embryonic stem cells. Second, why would they want to, and how would they know how to, analyze “raw data” without being scientists? FYI, scientists are not data-generating machines. Even technicians aren’t. Such assessment by one’s peers is known as peer review. If all the peers are untrustworthy, then what is the point of publishing? What’s the point of retracting? Why is there publicly funded science at all? After all, the private sector is so much more objective.