Science is designed so those gaps cannot happen.
But it doesn't stop it from being open to interpretation. We hate to admit it, but science is highly influenced by culture, economics and politics, and it is to a certain extent a collaborative enterprise. We get together and vote on what is good or bad science. THat's what peer review is all about.
Science has its controversies, its competing schools, its great debates. It is a very human enterprise, and it is far from objective. Anyone who has followed the global warming debate can tell you that.
Here's another debate worth looking into:
http://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/debate20.html