Muad'Dib

Or at least increasing the evidence for a powerful oppressive establishment...

Muad'Dib

I don't remember off-hand how much he actually complained, but he could have legitimately done so.

Two observations come to mind, though. First, these are warning signs rather than litmus tests for pseudoscience; and second, they depend on our current political environment. Oppressive establishments have existed in the past, but they're not really all that believable today.

Ensign Steve

I believe #2 is referring specifically to our current scientific establishment.

gilly54

I think that the suppression of studies in some areas of the medical field occurs. The instance that comes to mind is of a clinic that did a long term (10 year)study using a newer form of radiation therapy that showed prostate cancer survival rates better than the more widely used, older form of therapy. The abstract of the paper was submitted for presentation at a national meeting. The abstract wasn't outright rejected, but was permitted to be presented as a poster, rather than an oral presentation to the entire audience. For those who don't know about poster sessions, it is where the data is literally presented in poster form and relegated to some off-room at a conference where very few participants visit.

I felt bad for my colleague who worked so hard on the study. Do I think that the reason the study was not given the attention it merited was because the majority of the judging commitee was comprised of doctors who practice the old technology? Yes, I do.
As vindication,there was another medical association of greater prestige, that accepted their paper for publication.

beausoleil

I think you're likely to convince more people at a poster than in a talk, actually. I don't see it as a second rate choice from the point of view of getting your ideas across. It holds lower standing from a sociological view of science, however, but I try not to worry about that.

Ensign Steve

Oh, I definitely believe this is possible. A had a good friend who worked for the Food & Drug Administration, and he used to scare us with horror stories of which drugs got passed and which got pulled and for what reasons, and SOOO much of it was political. But that is a gov't bureaucracy, so I was not that surprised. So, yes, I think it does still happen, I just don't think the same is the case with Galileo, who was shot down by the religious establishment in charge at the time, and not by the scientific community (if such existed at the time).

Nowhere357

This is an excellent thread. Open minds and skepticism, in harmony. Almost a primer. 5 stars.

MortalWombat

In my experience, it's generally the big-wig labs that get to give talks at national meetings. So it is possible that it was more of croneyism at work rather than suppression of ideas. If the paper was accepted for publication, that means it was peer-reviewed. Journal editorial boards generally give papers to referees in the same research area as the paper for review. So unless I'm missing something, I don't see how this was a suppression of ideas.