I am admittedly in the minority of thinkers on this.

Here is how the typical molecular biology study goes these days: 1) We have a disease model. 2) In our model, we have found that gene/protein X is altered. 3) We restored expression/function/activity of gene/protein X to a more physiological level. 4) We were able to mitigate the disease state to some extent.

Most disease models are non-physiological, for starters. Second, and most important, only specific genetic diseases are caused purely by a gene being out of whack. Most diseases are caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors, and their etiologies are very complex. All we do with most studies is to try to put fingers in the dike. Unfortunately, the grant system and the academic literature system is most well equipped to score these types of studies. NIH wants logic, technical ability, and sensitive measurement, without much regard for utility. Fancy machines make great slides to show Congress. There is nothing more torturous than sitting through a talk where a researcher describes their "exciting new microarray results."

If you want an actual specific example, go to PubMed and just start taking a peek around.