American and British history is riddled with examples of valid research and inventions which have been suppressed and derogated by the conventional science community. This has been of great cost to society and to individual scientists. Rather than furthering the pursuit of new scientific frontiers, the structure of British and American scientific institutions leads to conformity and furthers consensus-seeking. Scientists are generally like other people when it comes to the biases and self-justifications that cause them to make bad decisions and evade the truth. Some topics in science are 'taboo' subjects. Two examples are the field of psychic phenomenon and the field of new energy devices such as cold fusion. Journals, books and internet sites exist for those scientists who want an alternative to conformist scientific venues.
Although some scientific ideas are truly unfounded, the author of this paper
will explore instances when valuable scientific ideas were unfairly reviled and
rejected. This author will discuss the cognitive processes, including cognitive
dissonance, conformity, and various biases which contribute to such
suppression.
One of the earliest examples with which nearly everyone is familiar occurred
in the early seventeenth Century. Galileo was branded as a heretic and sent to
prison for declaring that the earth traveled around the sun (Manning 1996)..
This paper will concentrate on examples from a period starting closer to the
industrial age and continuing until the present. The first example presented
here is drawn from Richard Milton's (1996) book Alternative Science. Antoine
Lavoisier, the science authority for eighteenth and early nineteenth century
Europe and father of modern chemistry, assured his fellow Academicians in 1790,
that meteorites could not fall from the sky as there were no stones in the sky
(Milton,1996). In spite of first-hand reports of meteors falling from the sky,
Lavoisier was believed. Nearly all of the meteorites in public and private
collections were then thrown out. Only one meteor that was too heavy to move was
saved, so today the world has few specimens that predate 1790. Meteors were not
commonly collected again until mounting evidence for their extraterrestrial
origin predominated about 50 years later.
Milton (1996) continued with the history of the human powered flight. During
the years, between 1903 to 1908, Wilbur and Orville Wright repeatedly
demonstrated the flight capability of their invention, the airplane. Despite
these demonstrations plus numerous independent affidavits and photographs from
local enthusiasts as well, the Wrights' claims were not believed. Scientific
American, the New York Herald, the US Army and most American scientists
discredited the Wrights and proclaimed that their mechanism was a hoax. Noted
experts from the US Navy and from Johns Hopkins University decried "powered
human flight . . .absurd "(Milton,1996 p.11).
In a similar vein, the inventors of the turbine ship engine, the mechanical
naval gunnery control, the electric ships telegraph, and the steel ship hull all
initially met with disinterest, disbelief and derision by the British Navy of
the nineteenth century (Milton, 1996).
There are numerous accounts of useful science ideas that received such
treatment. However, this writer will discuss just a few of the inventions and
ideas by the best known scientists. Milton (1996) explained how the invention of
what is now considered a very ordinary object, the light bulb, was initially
mired in controversy and disbelief. When Thomas Edison was finally successful in
finding a light bulb filament which could glow while sustaining the heat of
electrical conduction, he invited members of the scientific community to observe
his demonstration (Milton 1996). Although the general public traveled to witness
his electric lamp, the noted scientists of the day refused to and claimed the
following about Edison:
"Such startling announcements as these should be deprecated as being unworthy of science and mischievous to its true progress." -Sir William Siemens, England's most distinguished engineer (Milton, 1996 p.18)Luckily, the disinterest and derision of Edison's scientific peers did not prevent sharp speculators, like J. P. Morgan and William Vanderbilt from investing funds and helping Edison's inventions become universally adopted (Milton, 1996). Other inventors of the day were not always so lucky.
"The Sorcerer of Menlo Park appears not to be acquainted with the subtleties of the electrical sciences. Mr. Edison takes us backwards. One must have lost all recollection of American hoaxes to accept such claims." -Professor Du Moncel (Milton,1996 p.18)
"Edison's claims are "so manifestly absurd as to indicate a positive want of knowledge of the electric circuit and the principles governing the construction and operation of electrical machines."-Edwin Weston, specialist in arc lighting (Milton, 1996 p.18)
Other innovators who were described by Milton (1996) as victims of the
insults of the skeptical scientific power elite, were such men as John Logie
Baird, inventor of television. Baird had been described by the British Royal
Society as "a swindler" (p. 19). Likewise, Wilhelm Roentgen's discovery of
X-rays was decried as an "elaborate hoax" (p.22) by Lord Kelvin, the most
influential scientist of Europe in 1895. Scientists of Roentgen's day produced
film fogging X-rays on a substantial scale but were unwilling to consider the
wide ranging implications of Roentgen's work for 10 years after his discovery
(Milton, 1996).
Another example of such victimization, presented by Dean Radin (1996) in his
book The Conscious Universe, involved the theory of German meteorologist, Alfred
Wegener. This theory which Wegener developed in 1915, contended that the earth's
continents had once been a single mass of land which later drifted apart.
Although Wegener carefully cataloged geological evidence, his American and
British colleagues ridiculed both him and his idea (Radin, 1996). Although
Wegener died an intellectual outcast in 1930, every schoolchild is currently
taught his theory which is known as continental drift.
The cost of scientific suppression to society can be seen in the history of
the development of the tank. According to Milton (1996), at a time when 1.000
men a day were dying on W.W.I battlefields for want of protection from shelling
and gunfire, the British admiralty, of that epoch, had the following to say
about E. L.. deMole's , invention, the tank:.
"Caterpillar landships are idiotic and useless. Nobody has asked for them and nobody wants them. Those officers and men are wasting their time and are not pulling their proper weight in the war"(p. 20).
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." -Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology France, 1872 (p.30)Several of the above examples show new ideas that were grievously misjudged by scientific peers and those in authority.
"Fooling around with alternating current in just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." -Thomas Edison, 1889 (p.207)
"I laughed till. . . my sides were sore." -Adam Sedgwick, British geologist in a letter to Darwin in regards to his theory of evolution, 1857 (p.9)
"If the whole of the English language could be condensed into one word, it would not suffice to express the utter contempt those invite who are so deluded as to be disciples of such an imposture as Darwinism." -Francis Orpen Morris, British ornithologist 1877 (p.10)
"Airplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre (p.245)
"To affirm that the aeroplane is going to 'revolutionize' naval warfare of the future is to be guilty of the wildest exaggeration." -Scientific American, 1910 (p.246)
"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" - H. M. Warner, Warner Brothers Studios, 1927 (p.72)
"The whole procedure of shooting rockets into space. . . presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished." -Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer (p.257)
"The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." Ernst Rutherford, 1933 (p.215)
"Space travel is bunk" - Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik (p.258)
"But what hell is it good for?" -Engineer Robert Lloyd, IBM 1968, commenting on the microchip (p.209)
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -Ken Olson, president of Digital Equipment Corp. 1977 (p.209)
Today, scientific research is still judged by peer review. Henry Bauer (1994)
in his book Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method revealed
how research is generally funded through association with a university. In
Western civilization , said Bauer (1994) selected peers judge the journal
articles that the academic scientists must publish to retain their university
positions and insure future funding.
Specific questions about the process of peer review were examined by
sociologist Michael J. Mahoney of the University of Pennsylvania. In an
interview granted to Boston Globe science reporter, David Chandler (1987),
Mahoney discussed his study. Mahoney sent copies of a paper to 75 reviewers but
doctored the results so that in some cases the research appeared to support
mainstream theories (Chandler 1987). In other cases Mahoney had doctored the
paper so the research deviated from them. When the doctored results ran contrary
to the reviewer's theoretical beliefs the author's procedures were berated and
the manuscript was rejected. When the results in the doctored papers confirmed
the reviewer's beliefs, the same procedures were then lauded and the manuscript
was recommended for publication (Chandler 1987).
Mahoney presented the results of this study to the American Association for
the Advancement of Science. Afterwards, Mahoney received 200 to 300 letters and
phone calls from scientists who felt they had been victimized because the
results of their research conflicted with the generally accepted scientific
viewpoint or with their reviewer's beliefs (Chandler 1987).
Daniel Koshland, editor the leading US scientific journal, Science, said this
in an interview to Chandler(1987) about science that threatens to change the
parameters of what is accepted:
"I think it's fair to say that a new idea, something that confronts existing dogma, has an uphill road. . .There certainly is no question that there is a prejudice in favor of the existing dogma"(Chandler 1987).In the same interview with Chandler (1987), Koshland cited, as one example, biochemist Edwin G. Krebs' discovery for which he received the Nobel prize. The discovery which is now known as the Krebs cycle, describes the fundamental series of enzyme reactions in living organisms. It was initially rejected.
Koshland (Chandler 1987) continued with the history of biologist Lynn
Margulis's work, showing the evolution of cell structure through symbiotic
unions of primitive organisms. It was also initially rejected and even scorned
(Chandler 1987). Although her work has become the accepted dogma and appears in
textbooks, in 1970 the National Science Foundation not only turned her down for
funding, but told her that she should never apply again. Koshland stated that
there are other examples such as these (Chandler 1987).
A job in scientific research, seems to this writer, to be much like any
precarious career position. There could be the usual tendencies to conform and
participate in group-think. Criticism by the science community and loss of
livelihood appear to this author to be punishment, while acceptance by the
science community and financial security seem like rewards. According to Aronson
(1996), punishment and rewards generally compel one to conform.
Bauer (1994) painted a picture of "an elite research community,"(p. 99)
consisting of a few dozen universities, which traditionally have been deemed to
have the most experts. These universities are thought to turn out the best
results and publications and are the top choice to receive both government and
private research money.
Bauer (1994) explained that there is little money in this country for more
exploratory pursuits for the "sake of scientific progress"(p. 98). Funding and
acknowledgment go to virtually the same schools and the same groups of
scientists, so the scope of exploration and scientific thought becomes limited
and intellectual inbreeding occurs (Bauer 1994). Most of the scientists chosen
to be journal editors and peer reviewers are also selected from this same narrow
ingrained group. This phenomenon was referred to by Bauer (1994) as the
"imperfections of the filter"(p. 99).
Like the "concurrence seeking" (p. 18) member of Hitler's inner circle,
described by Aronson (1995), this "highly filtered" (Bauer p. 99) group of
scientists tend to be in a position that often demand consensus of opinion and
necessitates conformity.
Bauer (1994) illustrated how, throughout history, the course of scientific
discovery was impeded by the social environment and prejudices of the time. He
gave the example of how in Nazi Germany, the scientists were unable to make
progress. The reason for this Bauer (1994) explained, is that they had been
commanded to work without the theory of relativity as that theory had been
originated and developed by a purportedly inferior Jew. Similarly the Soviets
were commanded to do without the theory of wave mechanics which also had an
unpopular genesis (Bauer 1994). The punishment of being a maverick scientist in
either of those societies were death or forced labor, so the writer of this
paper supposes the urge to conform must have been very compelling.
Bauer (1994) asserted that conformity within the scientific community leads
to the evasion of all unwanted or inconsistent facts and this obstructs the
practice of science. This avoidance of facts and truth by a group, seems to this
writer, to be very much akin to the consensus seeking and evasion of reality
that led up to the faulty decision to launch the Challenger space shuttle. Even
though it had parts which were known to be of dubious quality, "NASA and Thiokol
executive ...reinforced one another's commitment to proceed" (Aronson , 1995
p.17).
Thomas Gold, a professor and researcher with Cornell, wrote in his 1989
journal article "New Ideas in Science" that he attributed the tendency for
consensus seeking among scientist to a primarily vestigial instinct, "a herd
mentality"( p.103). Gold supported this notion of the herd mentality by stating
how petroleum geology and other disciplines have become completely intolerant of
any new ideas He also told of how he had the experience of making colleagues
violently angry with him, because he had proposed that there was some
uncertainly about the origin of petroleum. Moreover, Gold
claimed, the fresh and genuinely different research from the other countries
that are outsiders to the US herds, casts light on the truly one-dimensional
nature of our science institutions.
Gold (1989) conjectured that going against the herd and adopting a deviant
viewpoint, feels uncomfortable for personal cognitive and emotional reasons, as
well as for the practical reasons listed above by Bauer. Furthermore, Gold postulated that conformist scientist may be unconsciously motivated by
the protection afforded to them by the herd, "against being challenged ...or
having their ignorance exposed" (p. 106).
Aronson(1996) also stated that most people, when they are confronted with
information that they have behaved in a cruel manner, attempt to reduce
subsequent dissonant feelings of perceiving themselves as unkind. They often do
this by creating a belief that cruelty towards the victim is actually justified.
Studies by Karen Hobden and James M. Olson(1994) examined disparagement humor
directed at an out-group. Hobden et al.(1994) had a confederate tell extremely
disparaging jokes about lawyers to a group of subjects. The dissonance, caused
by disparaging the lawyer out-group, prompted the majority of the subjects to
change both their public and private attitudes about lawyers to one that was
substantially less favorable. (Hobden et al., 1994)
Another study by Linda Simon, Jeff Greenberg, and Jack Brehm (1995) showed
that trivialization is also effectively employed as a mode of dissonance
reduction. The subjects in Simon et al.'s (1995) study were led to follow
counter-attitudinal behaviors. They later chose to trivialize the dissonant
information about themselves more often than they chose to change their opinions
(Simon et al., 1995).
Many of the quotes contained in this paper in which a member of mainstream
science reacts towards new inventions or discoveries are steeped in
trivialization and disparagement. This leads this writer to believe that
scientists are reducing their cognitive dissonance about challenging science
ideas with same faulty cognitions and methods in which non-scientists engage.
"There's often some hasty rewriting of the rules of the game. For the would-be extraordinary, for the unorthodox claim on the verge of scientific success, the ground rules are gratefully changed. This practice, often referred to as 'Moving the goal posts' is an extraordinary phenomenon in itself and deserves recognition."(p.1)In the book by science writer, Patrick Huyghe co-authored with physicist Louis A. Frank (1990) The Big Splash, this moving of the goal posts was depicted by the conventional science society's reaction to a challenging discovery made by Dr. Frank. Frank and Huyghe (1990) wrote of how Dr. Frank found evidence that the Earth was being showered by approximately twenty house-sized ice comets per minute. These comets all broke up in the atmosphere. His research led him to believe that the millennia of bombardment by these ice comets were responsible for the presence of the water on Earth. Dr. Frank presented his data and his photographs of the ice comets to a geophysics journal for publication (Huyghe, 1990). At the time of the announcement of Dr. Frank's discovery, the academic standard of proof in astronomy was to have two images of the same object. Although Dr. Frank presented such proof, the appearance of ice comets in his photographs was considered to be merely due to a technical fluke and a higher standard of proof was then required (Huyghe, 1990). As each subsequent level of proof was delivered by Dr. Frank, a yet higher tier of standards was then demanded (Huyghe, 1990).
This writer believes that this goal post shifting is similar to some of the
tendencies examined by Aronson(1995). Aronson cited a survey which was done to
assess people's reaction to the 1964 surgeon general's report about the serious
health risks from cigarettes. Aronson (1995) found that smokers who had tried to
quit unsuccessfully experienced dissonance over their inability to stop the
habit. Those smokers tended to change their cognitions and create the belief
that smoking was not dangerous for them (Aronson, 1995). Exemplifying
intelligent people, who also smoked, or deluding themselves "that a filter traps
the all of the cancer- producing materials" (p.179) reduced the smokers'
dissonance and made them feel that their actions were justified. Just like
moving the goal posts, these cognitive ploys changed the standard by which
information was judged.
James McClenon's(1984) book Deviant Science: The Case of Parapsychology and
Dean Radin's (1997) book, The Conscious Universe both deal with the topic of
psychic phenomenon as a suppressed science. Dean (1997) cited dissonance
reduction as the reason why conventional science authorities had suppressed
numerous valid studies on psychic phenomenon. Dean (1997) stated that people
have an uncomfortable feeling when they are confronted with information that
seems impossible to them. Evidence of psychic phenomenon, also known as psi,
therefore becomes dissonant information. Although most of Deviant Science and
Conscious Universe were devoted to describing the many reproducible, strictly
scientific experiments that support the existence of ESP, the writers also
speculated about why this field has been found unacceptable. Both Dean (1997)
and McClenon (1984) claimed that the dismissal of well executed studies were not
due to skepticism, but mainly to blatant attacks by those who are threatened by
the shifting of perceptions in the sciences. McClenon (1984) cited the 1970's
science philosophy of Thomas Kuhn, who coined the term for shifting perceptions
"paradigm shifts"(p.21). McClenon (1984) had the following to say about Kuhn's
definition of paradigms cited from Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions:
"Paradigms are the universally accepted scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners . . . an object for future articulation and specification under new or more stringent conditions" (p.21).When an anomaly outside of this accepted model happens frequently enough, McClenon (1984) explained, there is a crisis. The anomalies that violates the current ruling paradigm are then either incorporated and resolved within the paradigm, or there is a "revolutionary upheaval"(p. 21).
Aronson (1995) described how people commonly have a low tolerance for anomalous, dissonant information. He had this to say about how people generally deal with challenges to their beliefs and thereby reduce their dissonance:
"People don't like to see or hear things that conflict with their deeply held beliefs or wishes. An ancient response to such bad news was to kill the messenger"(p. 185).This writer sees such "killing" going on in the deriding and dismissing of the science ideas and the "messenger" scientist.
Collin's work, cited by Radin, (1997) also explained a phenomenon termed
"scientific regress"(p. 236). Scientific regress happens when experimental
results are predicted by a well-accepted theory and then the outcome is examined
to see if it matches the initial expectations. Radin (1997) reasoned that with
psi research there isn't a well-accepted theory with which to compare the
results, so skeptics use "scientific regress" to invalidate all of the
scientific results in this field of study.
Radin (1997) also called attention to another form of the confirmation bias,
that of seeking to confirm one's original hypothesis when a situation is unclear
or confusing. Radin's definition here matches Aronson's (1995) definition of
"the confirmation bias -the tendency to confirm our original hypotheses and
beliefs"(p.150).
Radin (1997) said confirmation biases are especially problematic for older
more experienced scientists because "their commitment to their theories grows so
strong, that simpler or different solutions get overlooked"(p. 236). These
biases, Radin claimed, preserve ideas that are already established and causes
suppression of non-standard science research.
Dean Radin (1997) broke down the acceptance of a new science idea into the
following four predictable stages which this author sees as being rife with
various aforementioned biases and dissonance reduction:
Stage 1, skeptics proclaim that the idea is impossible.This writer believes that the cognitions in this last stage are attributable to what Aronson (1996) termed as "the hindsight effect" (p.7).
Stage 2, skeptics reluctantly concede that the ideal is possible, but trivial.
Stage 3, the mainstream realizes that the idea is more important than the trivializing scientists in authority lead them to believe.
Stage 4, even the skeptics proclaim that they knew it all along or even that they thought of it first (P.243).
By making the announcement about their success at a press conference,
Manning(1996) and Milton(1996), and Collins (1993) all stated that these two
distinguished scientists were breaking with the tradition of first submitting an
article to peer review for publication. Manning (1996) contended that it was
mainly this departure from the expected way of introducing the phenomenon, not
the failing of the results, which led to the trivializing and derogating of cold
fusion, and of Fleischmann and Pons as well, by the majority of mainstream
scientists.
Manning (1996) suggested that a secondary cause for disapproval was the fact
that science did not have a framework yet for how these cold fusion experiments
produced the energy. This lack of a previously existing framework seems to cause
most mainstream scientists to invalidate anomalous data through experimental
regress and the confirmation biases
Evidently Pons and Fleischmann intended to keep the means of producing cold
fusion to themselves in hopes of becoming wealthy, so they were not forthcoming
about the details of the methodology used. Although they were able to repeatedly
get the same verifiable results, other scientists of the time were not able to
independently duplicate what Pons and Fleischmann had done (Manning, 1996).
A third cause for disapproval, explained Manning (1996), is that the
massively funded hot fusion research organizations had also been trying over
decades to get some of the same findings as those from the cold fusion
experiments and may have had professional jealousy (Manning 1996).
This writer believes that the suppression of cold fusion could have been due
to some of the same cognitive distortions which led to the suppression of other
maverick science ideas and inventions throughout history. These cognitions
include the in-group out-group, confirmation, and that expectancy biases, as
well as cognitive dissonance reactions to anomalies.
Manning (1996) wrote of how in America, Fleischmann and Pon's reputations as
cold fusion researchers were tarnished. Cold fusion articles were suddenly
banished from science journals and U.S. patents for cold fusion were dismissed.
Manning (1997) continued that only Japan was still putting major funding into
cold fusion research. As a heavily populated island with few natural energy
resources, Japan had everything to gain from clean safe energy production. Also,
because many Easterners have a "spiritual belief in an all pervading energy
which comes in many forms,"(p. 102) the idea of fusion reactions taking place
without extreme high temperatures was not quite such a dissonant idea as it had
been for Westerners.
Other methods to derive usable energy that are considered to be in opposition
to the beliefs of mainstream science were discussed by Manning (1996). These
included solid state energy devices, vibrational devices developed by nineteenth
century musician and inventor John Ernst Worrell Keeley, vortex and magnetic
energy mechanisms, new technologies for using waste and hydropower, and the use
of hydrogen for power.
Some websites for these discussion groups can be found at the yahoo website
at http://www.yahoo.com, under the subheading, alternative science. In addition
there is http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wclose.html where one can find free
energy, cold fusion and otology discussion groups under the subheadings:
freenergy-L, vortex-L and taoshum-L.
There are journals created specifically for printing professionally written
studies on unpopular topics. Since involvement with these non-standard topics
might lead to a professional scientist's ostracism, one publication, The Journal
of Scientific Exploration (1986-1997) only prints articles by academic research
scientists, anonymously. This journal provides a forum for presentation,
criticism and debate for topics that are ignored or ridiculed by mainstream
science. It also has the secondary goal of publishing articles that help to
promote understanding of the factors that limit scientific inquiry.
Galilean Electrodynamics is a publication devoted to professionally written
journal articles that challenge Einstein's ideas. Only papers that are in the
realm of mathematics, engineering or physics and that are relativity-related are
considered for publication in this journal.
Infinite Energy Cold Fusion and New Energy Technology (1994- 1998) is a
magazine edited by Eugene Mallove and is devoted to energy experimentation that
is beyond the scope of orthodox accepted science.
Dr. Brian Martin (1998) in his current writings posted on the internet,
"Suppression Stories," asked that researchers publish more accounts about
suppression, and claimed that this will provide necessary support for dissident
and struggling scientists.
Radin (1997) closed his book with a hope that this process of suppressing new
ideas will not continue to be at the cost of good science and scientists. He
included this quote by Lewis Thomas, biologist and author of the Medusa and the
Snail:
"The only solid piece of scientific truth about which I feel totally confident is that we are profoundly ignorant about nature. . . It is this sudden confrontation with the depth and scope of ignorance that represents the most significant contribution of twentieth-century science to the human intellect"(p. 289).This author will bring this paper to a close with a quote from Bill Beaty's (1998) webpage article "Quotes against excessive skepticism:
"Daring ideas are like chessmen. Moved forward, they may be defeated, but
they start a winning game." -Goethe