Science is the practice of testing ideas against observation and repeatable experiment. This page covers how Ray Peat approached research and how scientific fields respond to evidence against an accepted theory.

Approach to research

[edit]

His graduate work in biology began in 1968, after earlier work in linguistics. Brain research proved as dogmatic as linguistics, so the work moved to reproductive physiology and aging, a field with little money behind it and more freedom to report unexpected results.[1] There, a result that contradicted the textbooks was judged by whether it could be repeated.

If I would observe something that seemed to violate the textbook description of what a cell is, professor would just pretend he hadn't seen it because they were getting their funding to develop a certain line of thinking. But since there was so little money put into reproduction and aging, actual science was allowed to go ahead.

— Ray Peat[2]

I've always thought of myself as a painter who couldn't make a profession of portrait painting because I didn't like the way the clients made demands on how I represented them, and that science is just part of the landscape. It isn't what I do as an occupation or profession. ... I think if a critic of opinions about reality could be called a scientist, yeah, then. But I think of myself as mainly a critic rather than a participant in the science culture.

— Ray Peat[3]

Textbooks and reviews pass claims along, and an error can spread when authors cite a primary paper they have not read. The newsletters cite the original studies by author and journal so that a reader can check them.

Using the Science Citations Index, I found that the misstatement had been quoted verbatim by a series of other biologists, as the reason Ling's theory was to be dismissed, and in each case they cited Ling's original article, rather than where they had actually found the misstatement.

— Ray Peat[4]

A claim backed only by consensus counts as unsettled. A position stays hypothetical until independent experiments confirm or refute it, and many disputes end with no clear answer.

Science used to involve confirmation or refutation of published results and conclusions. A different experimenter, using the technique described in a publication, would often get a different result, and a dialog or disputation would develop, sometimes continuing for years, before consensus was achieved, though many times there would be no clear conclusion or consensus.

— Ray Peat[5]

Resistance to new ideas

[edit]

Although the idea that "contradiction produces change" is associated with Hegel's "Dialectic," it was an old and well known theme in philosophy. When Blake's idea, that "without Contraries there is no progression," is seen in context, I think it is appropriate to think that to a great extent, Blake derived the idea from a consideration of the sexes.

— Ray Peat[6]

Scientific fields often hold on to an accepted theory long after evidence against it appears, and some rejected ideas are accepted decades later. Historians and philosophers of science have described how this happens, and medicine has several well-documented cases. The same history helps explain why much of the research cited on this wiki, such as Gilbert Ling's, sits outside mainstream biology.

Very recently, Helmut Schwartz, who became the head of Germany's research granting institution, the government's money dispenser for research, he said that outsiders are important everywhere, not just in science. You don't get advanced unless you have people somewhat on the fringe.

— Ray Peat[7]

Rejection by a field is not evidence that an idea is right. Many rejected ideas stay rejected because they are wrong, and the cases below were accepted only after new experiments, not because their authors were outsiders.

How fields keep a theory

[edit]

Normal science and anomalies

[edit]

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), by the historian Thomas Kuhn, most research is "normal science": work done inside a shared framework, Kuhn's "paradigm", which decides which problems are worth solving and what a good answer looks like.[8] Results that do not fit, Kuhn's anomalies, are at first set aside or explained away. When they pile up, a field can fall into crisis and in time switch to a new framework.[9]

Since the "normal science" in these authoritarian settings is dedicated to evading the truth, it becomes almost a guide to where to look for the truth.

— Ray Peat[10]

The picture of the living cell in all the biology textbooks is very much like that in the mind of Theodor Schwann, before he discovered that he was wrong.

— Gilbert Ling[11]

Kuhn separated scientists into two kinds: normal scientists whose scientific efforts follow conventional paradigms, and revolutionary scientists who introduce new ones. ... I suggested the designations for contemporary scientists: Type 2 scientists (who follow accepted scientific practices and beliefs ...) and Type 1 scientists (who go against conventional beliefs and practices ...). Only when Type 1 science has been proven to be correct does it become revolutionary. ... the system hastily put together, and called the peer-review system, is strongly biased in favor of research that follows traditional ways of thinking (Type 2), while giving no consideration at all to Type 1 science.

— Gilbert Ling[12]

Hard core and protective belt

[edit]

The philosopher Imre Lakatos gave a more detailed account in 1970. In his model a research programme has a "hard core" of central claims, which its followers agree never to give up. Around it they build a "protective belt" of auxiliary hypotheses, and when a test fails, they adjust or replace those helper ideas instead of the core.[13] Lakatos judged a programme by where those changes lead. If they bring new facts to light, the programme is progressing; if they only patch over failures after the fact, it is degenerating, and its core may in the end have to be abandoned.[13]

Planck's principle

[edit]

Science advances one funeral at a time.

— Popular short form of Planck's principle, a later condensation rather than Planck's own words[14]

The physicist Max Planck wrote late in life that new ideas win mainly through generational turnover: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."[15] The idea has been tested. A study of Darwin's theory in Britain found that younger scientists did not accept it much faster than older ones.[16] A 2019 study of 452 eminent life scientists who died early found the opposite pattern in modern biomedicine: papers in their fields from scientists who had never worked with them rose, and those newcomers drew on different literature and were more often highly cited. Few of the stars had sat on grant panels or edited journals, so the authors did not attribute the effect to direct blocking.[17]

Doctrines are admitted into the "scientific canon" by those who have the power of censorship.

— Ray Peat[18]

Peer review and novelty

[edit]

They think it means peer-reviewed papers, etc. No, that's academia. And if a paper is peer-reviewed, it means everybody thought the same, therefore they approved it. An unintended consequence is that when new knowledge emerges, new scientific insights, they can never ever be peer reviewed.

— Allan Savory[19]

Peer review is biased against new ideas. When a leading university randomly assigned grant proposals to expert evaluators, highly novel proposals received lower scores (randomized study).[20] The most novel research papers of 2001 were cited less in their first years and placed in journals with lower impact factors than expected, yet over the long run they were more likely than other papers to reach the top 1% of citations. Recognition of new ideas arrives late.[21] Three elite medical journals rejected the 14 most-cited manuscripts in a study of 808 later-published submissions, and editors turned away 12 of those without sending them to outside reviewers.[22]

In 1937 Nature rejected Hans Krebs's paper describing the citric acid cycle, the central loop of cell metabolism. The small journal Enzymologia published it within two months, and the discovery earned Krebs the 1953 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.[23][24][25]

Semmelweis

[edit]

The best-known medical case is Ignaz Semmelweis. In 1846 the doctor-run First Obstetric Clinic in Vienna lost about 11% of its mothers to childbed fever, against under 3% in the midwife-run Second Clinic. In mid-May 1847 Semmelweis had staff wash their hands in a chlorine solution, and the next year both clinics lost about 1.3%.[26][27]

Most leading obstetricians rejected his explanation because it clashed with the theories of disease they held. Semmelweis was slow to publish, and his book did not appear until 1861. By then, in his own words, his teachings were "either ignored or attacked" in the medical literature.[26][27] In 1865 he was committed to an asylum and died there within about two weeks, at 47. Accounts of his death differ: some histories give sepsis as the cause, while others report that attendants beat him and that he died of the resulting injuries or of infection from those wounds.[26][27][28] The sources do not show that his commitment was revenge by his critics.

The phrase "Semmelweis reflex," for rejecting new evidence because it conflicts with accepted beliefs, is a later coinage usually credited to the writer Robert Anton Wilson. It is a popular label, not a term from medicine or psychology research.[29]

[edit]

Ling and the sodium pump

[edit]

Gilbert Ling spent his career arguing against the textbook picture of a cell run by membrane pumps. His alternative, The Association-Induction Hypothesis, places the control of potassium, sodium and cell water in the cell's proteins. Ling's own energy budget for frog muscle put the cost of a sodium pump at several times the energy the cell could supply.[30] Mainstream biology kept the pump: Jens Skou identified it as an enzyme, the sodium-potassium ATPase, and shared the 1997 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for that work.[31] MRI grew out of the same theory: Raymond Damadian credited the association-induction hypothesis as the origin of the first scan of a live human body.[32]

Gilbert Ling's biophysical calculations were useful to physical chemists, and were soon put to practical use for understanding ion exchange resins, such as water softeners. Many sorts of evidence showed their validity for cell physiology, but nearly all biologists rejected them, preferring to talk about membranes, pumps, and channels, despite the evidence showing that the properties ascribed to those are simply impossible.

— Ray Peat[33]

[M]y subsequent challenge of the sodium pump hypothesis ... has drastically diminished my popularity among some of the most influential cell physiologists. As a symbol of displeasure, the term, Ling-Gerard microelectrode has become stripped of its marker and reduced to a nondescript "glass capillary microelectrode."

— Gilbert Ling[34]

Vegetable oils and heart advice

[edit]

In 1961 the American Heart Association (AHA) first advised men to cut saturated fat and use polyunsaturated vegetable oils in its place.[35][36] The funding of the AHA's 1948 growth is disputed. One history review traces $1.7 million to Procter & Gamble, the maker of Crisco, while the AHA's own account credits radio listeners of a show that Procter & Gamble sponsored.[36][37] Seed oils covers both accounts.

Funding and patronage

[edit]

A young researcher's career can hinge on a single patron or grant. At Groningen, Albert Szent-Györgyi found a reducing agent in plants and the adrenal cortex; after the laboratory's head died, he had no money and no foreign diploma. At the 1926 physiology congress in Stockholm, Frederick Gowland Hopkins offered him a Rockefeller fellowship at Cambridge, where he crystallized the substance.[38] After he moved to Szeged in 1932, tests there showed it was vitamin C.[39]

I thought that I had to give up altogether, being still a beginner in science, who had no more money and no foreign diploma. ... What his individuality proclaimed was that in spite of all the hard work involved, research is not a systematic occupation but an intuitive artistic vocation.

— Albert Szent-Györgyi[40]

In his 1997 reply to a revival of the pump argument, Ling gives his own account of how his laboratory ended: his former graduate students left en masse and his NIH-supported work was stopped, while, in his words, "jobs and research grants were all totally under control of my scientific opponents".[41]

The unfortunate thing about all this is that you must have grantsmanship to obtain the grant in the first place, and the acquisition of this talent is not only time consuming but quite unrelated to scientific competence. Indeed, it seems to me that the development of the kind of worldliness needed to get a grant is actually harmful to the scientific spirit.

— Hans Selye[42]

Vindicated decades later

[edit]

... yet Mendel's momentous publication was completely ignored by his contemporaries. It is characteristic of discoveries of totally unexpected new phenomena that contemporary "classical science" is unprepared to appreciate their importance and applicability. It was not until thirty years later that several other investigators obtained similar results. Then, in searching the literature they found that both the observations and their correct interpretation had been published by an amateur who used only the technology of a vegetable-gardener ...

— Hans Selye[43]

Childbed fever and germ theory

[edit]

Semmelweis's hand washing gained a theory only after his death. Joseph Lister published his antiseptic method for surgery in 1867, and in 1879 Louis Pasteur identified streptococci in women with childbed fever, which opened the way to belated recognition of Semmelweis's work.[44][45]

Chemiosmosis

[edit]

The chemiosmotic hypothesis, published by the biochemist Peter Mitchell in 1961, has mitochondria making ATP with a gradient of protons across their inner membrane, instead of through a chemical go-between molecule.[46] The idea had no direct experimental support when he proposed it and met strong skepticism, but evidence from many laboratories over the next 15 years won it acceptance, and Mitchell received the 1978 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.[47][48] In his Nobel lecture, Mitchell counted it a happy result that his former opponents had accepted the theory while still in their prime, against Planck's gloomier rule.[49] Ling rejected chemiosmosis as well, in a long critique from 1981.[50]

Ulcers and Helicobacter pylori

[edit]

In 1984 Barry Marshall and Robin Warren reported curved bacteria in the stomachs of nearly all patients with active chronic gastritis or peptic ulcers.[51] Most experts then treated the bacteria as harmless passengers. To show they could cause disease, Marshall drank a culture himself and developed gastritis within about ten days.[52][53] A 1994 US National Institutes of Health consensus meeting endorsed detecting and treating the infection in ulcer patients, and the two shared the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.[54][55]

Transposable elements

[edit]

In 1950 Barbara McClintock described genetic elements in maize that could move from one place on a chromosome to another and switch nearby genes on and off.[56] The common story that no one believed her is only partly true. Maize geneticists confirmed the movement within a few years, while her broader theory that these elements control development found little support. Interest grew after similar mobile elements turned up in bacteria in the 1960s, and she received the 1983 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.[57][58]

Why WikiPeatia exists

[edit]

The newsletters, articles and radio interviews this wiki draws on cite a large body of research, much of it old, hard to obtain, or absent from current textbooks. WikiPeatia collects that material by topic and links each claim to its source, such as a journal paper, a page in a scanned book, or the exact minute in a recorded interview, so that readers can check the original instead of relying on a summary.[59] Pages on contested ideas, such as Ling's, also report how mainstream research responded.

See also

[edit]


References

[edit]
  1. ↑ Ray Peat, "Life Supporting Substances", It's Rainmaking Time, 1:41
  2. ↑ Ray Peat, "Life Supporting Substances", It's Rainmaking Time, 3:19
  3. ↑ Ray Peat, "On the Back of a Tiger, Day One", Perceive Think Act Films (2021), 55:08, answering "How would you describe yourself?" (55:08) and "Do you consider yourself a scientist?" (56:40)
  4. ↑ Ray Peat, "Natural Order and Gilbert Ling", p. 1
  5. ↑ RU486, cancer, estrogen, and progesterone, raypeat.com, 2007
  6. ↑ Can art instruct science? William Blake as biological visionary, raypeat.com
  7. ↑ Ray Peat, "Biochemical Health", Politics and Science, 19:01. Name as spoken; the official is not confirmed. Helmut Schwarz, a chemist, was president of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation from 2008 to 2017 and vice-president of the DFG from 2001 to 2007 (Humboldt Foundation), but no record of this remark was found.
  8. ↑ Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press; 1970. Chapter III, "The Nature of Normal Science," pp. 23-34; Chapter IV, "Normal Science as Puzzle-solving," pp. 35-42. Chapter page ranges from the publisher's table of contents; the main text keeps the 1962 pagination.
  9. ↑ Kuhn 1970, Chapter VI, "Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discoveries," pp. 52-65; Chapter VII, "Crisis and the Emergence of Scientific Theories," pp. 66-76; Chapter IX, "The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions," pp. 92-110.
  10. ↑ Physiology texts and the real world, Ray Peat newsletter
  11. ↑ Gilbert Ling, "History of the Membrane (Pump) Theory of the Living Cell from Its Beginning in Mid-19th Century to Its Disproof 45 Years Ago, Though Still Taught Worldwide Today as Established Truth", p. 17(Ling GN, 2007.)
  12. ↑ Gilbert N. Ling, A Revolution in the Physiology of the Living Cell (Malabar, FL: Krieger, 1992), corpus pp. 18–19 (chunks 9–10)
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Lakatos I. "Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes." In: Lakatos I, Musgrave A, eds. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press; 1970:91-196. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139171434.009. Section 3(a), "Negative heuristic: the 'hard core' of the programme": "we must use our ingenuity to articulate or even invent 'auxiliary hypotheses,' which form a protective belt around this core... A research programme is successful if all this leads to a progressive problemshift, unsuccessful if it leads to a degenerating problemshift." Wording checked in an excerpt; the exact page in the 1970 volume was not checked.
  14. ↑ Azoulay P, Fons-Rosen C, Graff Zivin JS. "Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?" Am Econ Rev. 2019;109(8):2889-2920, which takes the phrase as its title. Planck's own wording is in Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers (1950).
  15. ↑ Planck M. Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. Translated by Gaynor F. New York: Philosophical Library; 1950. Wording as quoted in the epigraph of Azoulay et al. 2019; page number not checked. Peter Mitchell's 1978 Nobel lecture dates earlier versions of the remark to 1928 and 1933. The short form "science advances one funeral at a time" is a later paraphrase.
  16. ↑ Hull DL, Tessner PD, Diamond AM. "Planck's Principle." Science. 1978;202(4369):717-723. doi:10.1126/science.202.4369.717. PMID 17807228. Historical study of British scientists' acceptance of evolution after 1859.
  17. ↑ Azoulay P, Fons-Rosen C, Graff Zivin JS. "Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?" Am Econ Rev. 2019;109(8):2889-2920. doi:10.1257/aer.20161574. PMID 31656315. Observational study: articles by non-collaborators in the star's subfield rose 8.6%; only 3 of the 452 stars sat on NIH study sections and 3 were journal editors.
  18. ↑ Tissue-bound estrogen in aging, Ray Peat newsletter
  19. ↑ "What Is Science?", excerpt from Marijn Poels' documentary Return to Eden (2020), 0:46
  20. ↑ Boudreau KJ, Guinan EC, Lakhani KR, Riedl C. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science." Manage Sci. 2016;62(10):2765-2783. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285. PMID 27746512. Randomized assignment of evaluators to proposals; 2,130 evaluator-proposal pairs. Evaluators also scored proposals close to their own expertise lower.
  21. ↑ Wang J, Veugelers R, Stephan P. "Bias against novelty in science: a cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators." Research Policy. 2017;46(8):1416-1436. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.006. Bibliometric study of all Web of Science research articles from 2001; novelty measured as first-time combinations of referenced journals.
  22. ↑ Siler K, Lee K, Bero L. "Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(2):360-365. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418218112. PMID 25535380. 1,008 manuscripts submitted to three elite medical journals; 808 eventually published; lower reviewer scores still predicted fewer citations overall.
  23. ↑ Vignais P, Vignais PM. "Challenges for Experimentation on Living Beings at the Dawn of the 21st Century." In: Discovering Life, Manufacturing Life: How the Experimental Method Shaped Life Sciences. Springer; 2010, chapter 5. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3767-1_5. Scholarly history: Nature's editors rejected the 1937 article; Enzymologia accepted and published it within two months.
  24. ↑ Krebs HA, Johnson WA. "The role of citric acid in intermediate metabolism in animal tissues." Enzymologia. 1937;4:148-156. Reprinted in FEBS Lett. 1980;117 Suppl:K1-10. PMID 6998725.
  25. ↑ The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1953, nobelprize.org: Hans Adolf Krebs "for his discovery of the citric acid cycle".
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 Ravel V, Pandiyan C, Chandran K. "Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818-1865): a public health visionary and champion of hand hygiene." GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2025;20:Doc79. doi:10.3205/dgkh000608. PMID 41438840. Historical review. 1846: First Clinic 459/4,010 deaths (11.4%), Second Clinic 105/3,754 (2.7%); 1848: First Clinic 45/3,556 (1.3%), Second 43/3,219 (1.3%).
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Kadar N. "Rediscovering Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818-1865)." Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(1):26-39. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.1084. PMID 30444981. Historical review: First Clinic mortality 3 times the Second's; chlorine hand disinfection cut it 3- to 10-fold.
  28. ↑ Dash NR, Singh, Mohapatra, Keshetty. "Dr. Ignaz Phillip Semmelweis: the unrecognized pioneer of aseptic practices." Cureus. 2024;16(8):e68350. Historical review: admitted by his friend Ferdinand Hebra and his wife; died of septicemia within 14 days from wounds after a beating by attendants.
  29. ↑ Bhattacharya K. "Ignaz Semmelweis: handwashing invention and COVID-19." Indian J Surg. 2020;82(3):291-292. Commentary; credits the definition to Robert Anton Wilson.
  30. ↑ Gilbert Ling, "Debunking the Alleged Resurrection of the Sodium Pump Hypothesis", p. 3(Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR 1997;29:123-198, printed p. 125. Ling's 1952 rough estimate: at least 4 times the maximally available energy; later 15 to 30 times (printed p. 126).)
  31. ↑ The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1997, nobelprize.org: half to Jens C. Skou "for the first discovery of an ion-transporting enzyme, Na+, K+ -ATPase". Original paper: Skou JC. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1957;23(2):394-401. PMID 13412736.
  32. ↑ Damadian, letter to Ling, quoted in What Is Life Answered by Gilbert Ling: "The achievement originated in the modern concepts of salt water biophysics, on which you are the grand pioneer with your classic treatise, the association-induction hypothesis."
  33. ↑ Fatigue, aging, and recuperation, Ray Peat newsletter
  34. ↑ Gilbert Ling, "History of the Membrane (Pump) Theory of the Living Cell from Its Beginning in Mid-19th Century to Its Disproof 45 Years Ago, Though Still Taught Worldwide Today as Established Truth", p. 48(Ling GN, 2007.)
  35. ↑ Central Committee for Medical and Community Program of the American Heart Association. "Dietary fat and its relation to heart attacks and strokes." JAMA. 1961;175:389-391. PMID 14447694. Content as summarized in Teicholz 2023; the original text was not checked.
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Teicholz N. "A short history of saturated fat: the making and unmaking of a scientific consensus." Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2023;30(1):65-71. doi:10.1097/MED.0000000000000791. PMID 36477384. Narrative history review.
  37. ↑ American Heart Association, "No, Procter & Gamble Didn't Give $20M to the American Heart Association", heart.org: more than 2 million letters with donations totaling $1.58 million during the 1948 Truth or Consequences contest.
  38. ↑ Albert Szent-Györgyi, "Lost in the Twentieth Century", p. 8(Annu Rev Biochem 1963;32:1-15. doi:10.1146/annurev.bi.32.070163.000245.)
  39. ↑ Albert Szent-Györgyi, "Lost in the Twentieth Century", p. 9(Annu Rev Biochem 1963;32:1-15. doi:10.1146/annurev.bi.32.070163.000245.)
  40. ↑ Albert Szent-Györgyi, "Lost in the Twentieth Century", p. 8(Annu Rev Biochem 1963;32:1-15. doi:10.1146/annurev.bi.32.070163.000245.)
  41. ↑ Gilbert Ling, "Debunking the Alleged Resurrection of the Sodium Pump Hypothesis", p. 6(Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR 1997;29:123-198, printed p. 128. Ling's own account; not independently documented.)
  42. ↑ Hans Selye, From Dream to Discovery: On Being a Scientist (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), pp. 357–358
  43. ↑ Hans Selye, In Vivo: The Case for Supramolecular Biology (New York: Liveright, 1967), p. 28
  44. ↑ Lister J. "On the antiseptic principle in the practice of surgery." Br Med J. 1867;2(351):246-248. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.351.246. PMID 20744875.
  45. ↑ Lepenos T, Sanoudou D, Protogerou A, et al. "Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865), Joseph Lister (1827-1912) and the link between their works." Cureus. 2024. PMID 39022474. Historical review: Pasteur "paved the way for the rather belated recognition of Semmelweis's work when he discovered the hemolytic streptococcus as the cause of postpartum sepsis in 1879".
  46. ↑ Mitchell P. "Coupling of phosphorylation to electron and hydrogen transfer by a chemi-osmotic type of mechanism." Nature. 1961;191:144-148. doi:10.1038/191144a0. PMID 13771349.
  47. ↑ Prebble JN. "The philosophical origins of Mitchell's chemiosmotic concepts." J Hist Biol. 2001;34(3):433-460. doi:10.1023/a:1012946715673. PMID 11859886. Historical study: the 1961 formulation "lacked any experimental support for its three central postulates".
  48. ↑ Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1978, press release, nobelprize.org: "This theory was first received with scepticism; but, over the past 15 years, work in both Mitchell's and many other laboratories have shown that the basic postulates of his theory are correct."
  49. ↑ Mitchell P. "David Keilin's respiratory chain concept and its chemiosmotic consequences." Nobel Lecture, 8 December 1978, nobelprize.org. PDF p. 31: "Thus to have falsified the pessimistic dictum of the great Max Planck is, I think, a singularly happy achievement."
  50. ↑ Ling GN. "Oxidative phosphorylation and mitochondrial physiology: a critical review of chemiosmotic theory, and reinterpretation by the association-induction hypothesis." Physiol Chem Phys. 1981;13:29-96. PMID 7022492.
  51. ↑ Marshall BJ, Warren JR. "Unidentified curved bacilli in the stomach of patients with gastritis and peptic ulceration." Lancet. 1984;1(8390):1311-1315. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(84)91816-6. PMID 6145023. Case series: biopsies from 100 consecutive patients; curved bacilli in 58; cultured from 11.
  52. ↑ Marshall BJ, Armstrong JA, McGechie DB, Glancy RJ. "Attempt to fulfil Koch's postulates for pyloric Campylobacter." Med J Aust. 1985;142(8):436-439. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1985.tb113443.x. PMID 3982345. Single volunteer: histologically proven gastritis on day 10, largely resolved by day 14.
  53. ↑ Marshall BJ. "Helicobacter connections." Nobel Lecture, 8 December 2005, nobelprize.org. PDF p. 1: "The hypothesis that peptic ulcer was caused by a bacterial infection was not accepted without a fight... Marshall drank a culture of Helicobacter"; acceptance after 1994. PDF p. 19: the self-ingestion.
  54. ↑ Marshall BJ. "Biographical." nobelprize.org, from Les Prix Nobel 2005. February 1994 NIH consensus meeting.
  55. ↑ Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2005, press release, nobelprize.org: Marshall and Warren "with tenacity and a prepared mind challenged prevailing dogmas".
  56. ↑ McClintock B. "The origin and behavior of mutable loci in maize." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1950;36(6):344-355. doi:10.1073/pnas.36.6.344. PMID 15430309.
  57. ↑ Comfort NC. "'The real point is control': the reception of Barbara McClintock's controlling elements." J Hist Biol. 1999;32(1):133-162. doi:10.1023/a:1004468625863. PMID 11623812. Historical study based on archives and interviews: transposition "was accepted immediately by both maize and bacterial geneticists"; her control theory "was not widely accepted".
  58. ↑ Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1983, press release, nobelprize.org: mobile elements shown in bacteria during the mid-1960s; their wider significance became apparent in the preceding ten years.
  59. ↑ WikiPeatia:About.