In general, one method or approach that a number of organizations are taking—and it's still a work in progress—is to have everything be much more open. That could mean publishing data openly, making sure that anyone who wants to check those figures or take a look at the images, or whatever it was, has an opportunity to do that. That could be other researchers, or it could be the general public. If you publish your data openly, it's at least a statement that you are going to stand behind it. In fact, again, more people can look at it.
In terms of the peer review system, that is obviously a larger conversation that I'd be happy to have another time. However, the idea that a number of people have floated is that we need to simply push far less through the peer review system and that we need to acknowledge its limitations. I actually still believe that peer review is very powerful and important, but I also think that the public and many people even in science have been sold a bill of goods about how much peer review can actually catch and how good of a system it is. It's being sold sort of as a good housekeeping seal of approval when, in fact, it is incredibly porous. I think that if we're honest about that, trust will follow.