A maverick view? Challenging the consensus
There is an apparent paradox at the heart of science. Research thrives on new ideas, new theories, competition and disagreement. Debates can get heated; comments highly personal. New studies rarely provide complete answers, and data may be interpreted in different ways.
From this disagreement an order gradually emerges, as studies are replicated, more data is gathered and theories are disproved. A consensus develops. The changing views about climate change and malaria in the highlands of Kenya illustrate how ideas evolve over time.
But what if someone thinks the consensus is wrong? Over time, many scientists have challenged conventional thinking. Alfred Wegener suggested that continents were drifting over the surface of the Earth. He was ridiculed by his peers - but ultimately proved right. In biology, heretics have included Howard Temin and David Baltimore, who showed that information could be copied from RNA into DNA, and Stanley Prusiner, who suggested that prions were infectious protein particles.
Yet for each free-thinking genius eventually being proved right, there are many mavericks whose ideas have not endured. Peter Duesberg led a long campaign insisting that AIDS was not caused by HIV. More recently, Andrew Wakefield sparked a crisis of confidence in the MMR vaccine by arguing it was linked to autism, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The processes of science can seem conservative. Peer review - where grant applications and scientific papers are judged by fellow experts - can make it hard for those whose ideas are not mainstream. Nonconformists may find it difficult to get funding for their research or have their findings published. Public criticism of unconventional views can appear to be a way of stifling dissent.
Ultimately, though, ideas stand or fall on how consistent they are with data. With supporting evidence, an unfashionable theory will in time be accepted.