Few retractions are associated with numerorus avenues of molecular biology, simply because the nebulous hypotheses are never actually tested in the complex systems. In many cases, compensatory systems are the actual cause of a phenotypic change. However, retractions in structural biology are extremely unfortunate! I do not know, or blame, the authors. Problems of this sort are often caused by the necessity of grant applicants to list excessive numbers of publications. I wish that reviewers would actually "read" the articles and not merely count the number of publications. However, I fully understand that the the reviewers themselves are also very busy, and this is often the case for individuals asked to review manuscripts! Errors of this kind would be greatly diminished if quality, rather than quanity, was of greater importance in the evaluation of a publication. Also, we should respect scientific achievement and not "apparent" productivity. This change should be accompanied by the establishment of "scientific impact factors" for individual publications, rather than apply impact factors to specific journals.