Thanks InfraBlue. I think that what these two scientists did was horrible, and yes it hurts science to have stories like this. This is one of the reasons that we have peer review and have experiments reproduced.
But the question is; When do we trust science? As a society, we want policy to be evidence based. Science is the institution that can do this. The alternative is policy based on political ideology that isn't fact based.
Institutional science has done a remarkably good job, in spite of the black mark you mention. We have halved the number of deaths due to heart diseases in the past 50 years. We have dramatically increased life expectancy, made cars safer, decreased infant mortality all with a careful application of science; fact-based, evidence driven and peer reviewed.
Institutional science warned against smoking pretty early. The problem wasn't science, it was the fact that their was a PR effort to confuse, obscure and deflect the science to protect the product. Anyone who actually looked at the research starting in the 1940s would have been convinced.
The lack of trust in institutional science (defined as peer reviewed careful research) is a danger to society. That is true whether the issue is tobacco, global climate change, or saturated fats.