StarDestroyer.Net BBS

We often see it in fiction as it became almost an archetype: a scientist too brilliant for his ivory-tower peers, who reject his (often quite ridiculous) new theories. It is irrelevant on how strong the research is or what the credibility of the fictional scientist was beforehand. Ivory-tower (or people portrayed as ivory-tower dwelling) scientists completely and utterly reject it, with no dissenter or alternative opinions. Usually, the super-brilliant scientist is too arrogant to call back his paper (or do anything similar) or claims, nor concede any one of his peers' arguments. So he usually becomes mad and goes into recluse to prove the rest of academia wrong or just do his own crazy shit.

Now, mad scientists are plenty to go around and they usually are either hopping on drugs or just spouting nonsense.

But what about rejection or even downright suppression of valid scientific breaktroughs in real life?

The example I heard today was about researching Mayan civilization, or more specifically, their writing. J. Thompson was a prominent Mayan researcher about 50-70 years or so, famous for categorizing a large amount of Mayan ideograms (or what he thought them to be anyway). However, a Russian linguist named Yuri Knorozov found a copy of a Mayan book and heard that it was impossible and viewed it as a challenge. Using linguistic techniques, he considered that the Mayan symbols were too many to be alphabetical but too few to be ideograms as Thompson thought. So he assumed that the Mayan books and symbols were syllable-based. He turned out to be right, but in the West, Thompson rejected this work out-of-hand.
Thompson was reputed to be both a stubborn man and a rapid anti-communist, so he did everything he could to push back Knorozov's work. According to wiki, certain Mayan epigraphers blamed Thompson for setting back the research. He was even hostile to his collogue Tatiana's idea about stelas at first, only to change his opinion the very next day.

I have to ask those who are more familiar with the history of science: what examples are there where it is the peers, not outside parties, that reject or even suppress new scientific advances or ideas in any field?

The problem with finding such examples is that the "dissident" always wins everyone over in the end without some ridiculous contrivance like a giant battle with space aliens that he predicted, thus breaking the archetype.

The problem with finding such examples is that the "dissident" always wins everyone over in the end without some ridiculous contrivance like a giant battle with space aliens that he predicted, thus breaking the archetype.

You misunderstood me: I am not looking for crazy theories that turned out to be true. I'm not saying that the archtype is realistic.

I am asking about theories that were a valid breakthrough or were more workable, which was met with hostility and even possible suppression from peers. Not because of the theory itself, but because of other reasons (like the theory is made by a researcher in hostile country).

Knorozov's work for example was recognised for what it is, especially after Thompson's death. However, Thompson did everything he could to prevent this, and arguably succeeded for in a short and limited term. This was arguably the case because he was the prominent head of Mayan research in his time, a relatively narrow field.

I am looking for similar examples: when peers, either for emotional or ideological or whatever reasons, refuse to acknowledge a new theory and even tries to suppress it even though the work itself is sound.

I was going to suggest Galileo, but the church's influence back then disqualifies his peers from your requirements (no outside influence), although it could be argued that, even today, socio-political conditions have an important effect on the opinion of scientists themselves, wich might lead to the marginalization of valid theories. You know, the same excuse fringe theorists use to defend their pseudo-science, but without the fallacious approach.

Alfred Wegener is a pretty good example. He postulated continental drift in the 1910s (with lots of fossil evidence), but didn't have the mechanism so he was laughed at. When the evidence that led to the modern theory of plate tectonics started coming to light, geology came around, but this didn't happen until the '60s, and only with much fuss.

To put it simply, any theory has to be backed by mathematical and physical rigour, and finally experimental predictions that can be tested not too difficultly. Otherwise, you'd be in string theory limbo, which as far as I am concerned, is a fringe theory which looks nice mathematically, but horrendous because one can't make any easy predicitions with it.

The notion of DNA and Genetics was scorned for decades in the Soviet Union. The reason for this was because a Russian biologist who was a good friend of Stalin's had a competing theory for how information was passed from generations, and so the 'western' notion of DNA was discouraged.

In geology, two examples of 'offensive' theories are the mass extinction of dinosaurs, and Nemesis. Both of these theories were thought to be reasonable extrapolations of data at first, even though Nemesis was later discredited. The KT-Impactor killing the dinosaurs was so counter to the 'gradualist' theory of geology that physical altercations broke out at conventions between geologists championing competing theories.

CaptainChewbacca wrote:The notion of DNA and Genetics was scorned for decades in the Soviet Union. The reason for this was because a Russian biologist who was a good friend of Stalin's had a competing theory for how information was passed from generations, and so the 'western' notion of DNA was discouraged.

You are probably referring to Lysenkoism as invented by Trofim Lysenko. It was a variation of Lamarckism and favored by Stalin for ideological and political reason. Unfortunately for Soviet biology Khrushchev also favored Lysenko's theory and so genetics based on modern synthetic evolutionary theory were not allowed in the Soviet Union until 1964.

I don't think that really fits the spirit of the OP though since offending scientists were dealt with by the government.

The KT-Impactor killing the dinosaurs was so counter to the 'gradualist' theory of geology that physical altercations broke out at conventions between geologists championing competing theories.

Wow. How hot were the arguments over Venus geology? From what I heard one of the current theories is the entire planet resurfaces every once in a while- the gradualists cannot like that.

Samuel wrote:I don't think that really fits the spirit of the OP though since offending scientists were dealt with by the government.

The KT-Impactor killing the dinosaurs was so counter to the 'gradualist' theory of geology that physical altercations broke out at conventions between geologists championing competing theories.

Wow. How hot were the arguments over Venus geology? From what I heard one of the current theories is the entire planet resurfaces every once in a while- the gradualists cannot like that.

Venus is different, and we were able to accept that because its obviously so hot that it doesn't have a differentiated core or tectonic plates. We could SEE the lava floes.

Would Sir Richard Owen's attempt to use his clout and position to discredit Darwin's Evolutionary Theory and various other bits of Bad Sciecne he pulled to do it count?

I find their conflict fascinating.

The theory of relativity and much of then-modern physics came under attack in Nazi Germany as being "tainted" by Jews, most notably Einstein. This deutsch physik movement was championed by two German physicists and Nobel laureates, Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, who had supported Hitler prior to his rise to power. The resulting conflict in the German scientific community even threatened to ruin Werner Heisenberg's career, who was labeled a "white Jew" by the SS, although his reputation was eventually rehabilitated thanks in part to the intervention of Himmler.

Would Sir Richard Owen's attempt to use his clout and position to discredit Darwin's Evolutionary Theory and various other bits of Bad Sciecne he pulled to do it count?

I find their conflict fascinating.

I would say that it would, if he was a peer. I recall that he did various rather insane ideas about how dinosaurs hop and stuff, so I would say that he did do work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Despite his publication (by 1861) of statistical/clinical trials where hand-washing reduced mortality below 1%, Semmelweis' practice only earned widespread acceptance years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory. In 1865, a nervous breakdown (or possibly Alzheimer's) landed him in an asylum, where Semmelweis died of injuries, at age 47.



I also love this example.
http://home.att.net/~steinert/wwii.htm#The Use of Plasma During World War II

This was a revolutionary new technology and only America had the huge industry to create such a product. Blood in and as of itself was viewed to be too fragile, too costly and too labour intensive to transport. On top of that, plasma could be stored for much longer periods of time and....... it was AMERICAN. However, plasma could not replace blood completely and soldiers who bled continuously would be gasping for air even as plasma was transfused into them. So, American doctors in England petitioned the Army chief, who was a doctor that an American blood program be set up on top of the plasma programme. It was refused on grounds of cost and that plasma was good enough. Ultimately, american doctors in the ETO would either borrow blood from their British counterparts or created their own "stealth" programme of blood collection from American soldiers.

Despite his publication (by 1861) of statistical/clinical trials where hand-washing reduced mortality below 1%, Semmelweis' practice only earned widespread acceptance years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory. In 1865, a nervous breakdown (or possibly Alzheimer's) landed him in an asylum, where Semmelweis died of injuries, at age 47.

I have to laugh at this one: today, Semmelweis is considered a Great Hungarian Hero "that shows that we produce more scientists per our population than other countries!". I live in a street named after him.

Of course, quite typically, his work was rejected by other other Hungarian scientists, because none of them could sleep at night knowing that it wasn't their club that came up with the next good thing.

Jorge González Camarena, inventor of a very efficient early colour television system.

Guillermo González Camarena (February 17, 1917 – April 18, 1965), was a Mexican engineer who was an inventor of a color-wheel type of color television, and who also introduced color television to Mexico.
...snip...

González Camarena invented the "Chromoscopic adapter for television equipment", an early color television transmission system. A U.S. patent application (2,296,019) states:
“ My invention relates to the transmission and reception of colored pictures or images by wire or wireless... ”

The invention was designed to be easy to adapt to black-and-white television equipment. González Camarena applied for this patent August 14, 1941 and obtained the patent September 15, 1942. He also filed for additional patents for color television systems in 1960 and 1962.

...snip...

A field-sequential color television system similar to his Tricolor system was used in NASA's Voyager mission in 1979, to take pictures and video of Jupiter.[1]

[1] refers to: Krauze, Enrique, Guillermo Gonzalez-Camarena Jr. "50 años de la televisión mexicana" (50th anniversary of Mexican T.V.) - Year 1999 Mexican T.V. Documentary produced by Editorial Clío & Televisa, broadcasted on 2000)

On the discussion related thereof on Yahoo! Answers: link.

Hmm. Would Nicola Tesla fit in this niche? The man's achievements were astounding, yet today more people know Edison's or Marconi's names than know Tesla's. Here's a short list:

• Alternating current. Ohh, he really pissed off his former boss Thomas Alva when he came up with this! Especially when he lit up the 1893 Chicago World's Fair with polyphase AC;
• He holds the first radio patent, confirmed in a patent suit he won against Guglielmo Marconi. Yet Marconi gets the recognition;
• He discovered X-rays before Wilhelm Roentgen, who got the credit for it;
• He demonstrated a radio-controlled model boat in New York City's Madison Square Garden in 1898;
• He laid the theoretical groundwork for the development of radar;
• He devised a method for wireless transmission of electrical power, which must have pissed off his benefactor George Westinghouse.

He died alone and nearly penniless in New York, and today very few people know that he was the inventor of the power system we depend on every day. Hell, he's been excised from history books.

The Color wheel system was limited as to the size of the screen it could be used on relative to the size of the wheel, so it never really caught on. It was simply too big and bulky, and competition came along fairly quickly, to be anything more than a novelty.

Tessla wasn't really suppressed, he just sucked at getting his name out there and then went crazy at the end of his life. The inefficiencies of ground and air transmission must be huge, and that was probably his most likely late life development.

It's because he had shit ideas, not scientific ones but personal beliefs that probably weirded people out, and because he liked to meet people while under his very big and very scary crackling discharging Tesla Coil?

Yeah, it was definitely because he was the prototypical real-life mad scientist.

I think inventions shouldn't count.

That is because the success (and credit) of the invention is often relies on chance, the inventor or his relatives'/friends' business expertise and honesty, as well as the practicality of the invention.
Also, biased history books and education. Again, you'll find a few more Hungarian names in Hungarian science history of our schoolbooks that the people actually in the field know about. I would not be the least surprised that some other nations do it too. If we brake out about how incorrect some of the stuff we're taught, we'll never fucking stop.

Tesla is an interesting example, particularly because every artist and writer loves to use a real-life eccentric scientist (who doesn't behave very eccentric inside their work, but are still described as eccentric because you can't have practical-minded, down-to-earth scientist heroes, now can we? that would show just how stupid the hero is in a rather uncool way, now wouldn't it?) who lost it at the end of his life. Tesla had pretty wonky ideas.

Tesla wasn't excised from history books over here. We learned about him in history and physics classes.

Hell ,there are crazies out there who claim he invented a source of free energy and was drugged and murdered by Edison and/or Westinghouse/Oil companies/Reptillian aliens (cross out unnecessary ones, add any enemies you can think of) for it.

Tesla is mentioned in every physics student's book in Russia.

Is Tesla really shunned that much ? So far his name came up several times in my uni physics and electrical courses. The man had many sensible ideas which are now part of engineering curriculum. On the other hand crazy ideas like 200 mile ranged death rays may endear him to joe public but not to science. It is sad he is known more for his crack pot ideas than the real work he did. I guess magic beams are more endearing than mucking with the dull maths behind alternating current and magnetism.

Since the SI unit for magnetic field strength is named after Tesla, the probability of him being 'erased from history' seems pretty low.

Just for grins, I pulled out my 1980 edition of my 11th grade textbook, Modern Physics. No mention of Tesla in the index, the glossary, the chapter on magnetism, the chapter on electromagnetic induction, or the chapter on alternating current! No mention at all. Thomas Edison is pictured and cited three times, and the first citation is a picture of Edison with Charles P. Steinmetz. According to my textbook, "[Steinmetz] developed the mathematical analysis of alternating-current circuits and provided the firm mathematical base of electrical engineering." Note that NO FUCKING MENTION is made of the man who actually INVENTED alternating current and lit up the World's Fair in Buffalo, using power from Niagara Falls! That kinda sucks.

So I pulled out my more recent USF textbook, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, from 2004. Look for Tesla...well, the Tesla as a unit of the magnetic field B is there. And, hey shucks, a sign of progress! He's mentioned once in the chapter on alternating current, with a nice callout box that has a head shot and this statement: "He was a key figure in the development of alternating current electricity, high-voltage transformers, and the transport of electrical power using AC transmission lines." And that's fucking it. A "key figure?" The man invented our power system, polyphase electricity, high voltage transformers, and was THE MAN responsible for every power grid that exists on the planet! Yet he rates no mention in a US high school textbook, and one measly cite in a college engineering text. Edison gets a whopping two citations in the same text.

So, maybe Tesla wasn't suppressed, but I'd contend he's been marginalized to a rather high degree.