Data vs. Research

We are at a point in history in which we have information available, literally at our fingertips. And yet, finding just pure information without bias is difficult. And really, who knows then? I read an article today about homeopathic and herbal remedies being on the shelves next to the "traditional" OTC cold remedies. The problem? You might wonder what would be the problem, people can have a choice between natural and chemical. The main problem is homopathic and herbal products are not recognized by the FDA, therefore concerns are raised. Now, I have a concern about this concern, and that is where I find the real misconception in data and research. Data, by definition is simply information that has been collected. Research is a systematic investigation. Therefore research is usually much more specific in nature for a precise purpose. Now that herbal and homeopathic products have trademark names and are actually patented, for marketing, things may change. Since remedies have been a part of the pharmaceutical industry, there has been a financial factor that has previously eliminated the potential value of herbal remedies. If something could not be patented, and a plant cannot be exclusively patented in it's original state, then an herbal remedy could never be owned exclusively. But now, there are "natural" formulas that can be trademarked and patented. So, very soon, if our government enables itself to establish control over our access to natural products, the FDA may be taking a new look at some old remedies.
If the FDA does not recognize herbal or homeopathic products, how is it determined they have no positive or negative effect on a person's health? If the only data that is respected and recognized must be collected by their own research, how biased will it be? Data is information. Research is something that is being sought. So, are the results of research usually deterimined prior to the investigation? Isn't much investigative research to find what someone wants to discover? Aren't most research grants given based on the projected outcome before the controlled experiment is even in place?
Why didn't the FDA see the potential in all these OTC products in the convergence of meth labs? Because their research didn't figure that into the equation. This next observation doesn't address OTC products, but look at all the harmful prescription medications that have been taken off the market recently due to severe side-effects and even deaths. And these products were researched and approved by the FDA. Not that I am advocating anything illegal, here, but what do you think? Have there been more deaths due to overdoses of marijuana or valium?
What if the marketers and those keeping inventory simply offered the best researched data?
Will people continue buying herbal and homeopathic products if they don't work?
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed