The scientific methods as developed by several philologists like Carl Popper provide objective tools for developing new hypothesis and theories. That’s theory though but far from daily practice where subjective elements play a role, making science rather conservative. Apparently it’s very hard to distinguish crackpots and frauds from genuine improvement. Not true? How about last year Nobel Price Laureates for medicine? http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html Notice that general recognition took 23 years from the discovery in 1982 to last year. How many lives could have been saved if that period would have been significant shorter? Why took it so long? Bluntly, non scientific, economic motives, the threat against the establishment: http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/printmember/mar1bio-1 [Broken] Fortunately the medical world has learned from that and Elsevier throws the first stone, reviewing peer review. http://www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/mehy/ [Broken] Hopefully more will follow.