We’re used to hearing about scientists who were thought of as quacks or cranks only to be vindicated years later, but most of these are from the distant past. For the most recent prominant example, I nominate Dr. Robert Atkins. Vilified and strongly attacked for his diet theories, his views have not conquered the world, but have been supported in recent studies (recent example), and have definitely achieved mainstream status.
Any other recent contenders?
Although there is some hyperbole surrounding the story, Barry Marshall was dismissed and attacked as “brash” and “overzealous” when trying to change the popular conception of gastric ulcer pathophysiology.
nm
Stanley Prusiner was thought to be a quack for insisting that a single protein was capable of transmitting scrapie in sheep. He now has a Nobel Prize for the discovery of prions.
Another Nobel Prize winner, Werner Forssman was fired and criticized thoroughly for his self-experimentation when he overturned centuries of dogma of “Don’t Touch the Heart” by catheterizing his own heart with urological equipment. (The story is even crazier - he duped and restrained the head nurse of the OR while he did it!)
I mentioned this one in a recent thread, so I’ll just cut and paste because I’m lazy:
Last year’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry recipient Dan Shechtman was ridiculed and ostracized for many years for the work that ended up getting him the Nobel Prize. In 1982 Shectman discovered quasicrystals, which appeared to violate all the rules about how crystals are supposed to fit together. He was laughed at, mocked, insulted and kicked out of his research group. Two time Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling ridiculed him mercilessly, saying “There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists.” After other researchers proved his work, the Nobel Prize committee said Shechtman “eventually forced scientists to reconsider their conception of the very nature of matter.” Shechtman himself said:
“For a long time it was me against the world. I was a subject of ridicule and lectures about the basics of crystallography. The leader of the opposition to my findings was the two-time Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, the idol of the American Chemical Society and one of the most famous scientists in the world. For years, 'til his last day, he fought against quasi-periodicity in crystals. He was wrong, and after a while, I enjoyed every moment of this scientific battle, knowing that he was wrong.”
The early AIDS researchers, like Jim Curran, could also fall in this category. They were not necessarily thought to be cranks, but were certainly thought to be over-reacting to a new disease. Unfortunately, they were very much correct in predicting a global pandemic. See “And the Band Played On” for a good depiction of the early days of AIDS.
That’s scienceese for “suck on it bitch” 
Alfred Wegener, of plate tectonics fame, may not be quite modern enough for you (1920s, mainly), but it’s a great example.
Lynn Margulis is an absolute nut. She’s a truther and an AIDS denialist who snuck a batshit Donald I. Williamson article around peer review into Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The article argued that caterpillars and butterflies evolved from different ancestors.
Margulis was nevertheless absolutely correct about Endosymbiotic theory. Her research into mitochondria was ideologically motivated but the science was sound and the conclusion is now generally accepted.
It is a truism of crankery that Great Minds were ridiculed for their revolutionary ideas, only to be vindicated later on (the conclusion being, you must therefore respect my particular crank ideas).
The problem is that groundbreaking ideas have always had to gain acceptance through solid evidence - the more extraordinary the claims, the more extraordinary the evidential basis needs to be.
The discovery that a bacterium (Helicobacter pylori) was responsible for most gastric ulcers is often cited as an example of the Establishment holding down scientific achievement through hidebound ideas, but it’s a bad one. Researchers rapidly jumped on the initial 1982 report and published their own findings, and within a few years the new approach to diagnosis and treatment was becoming widely accepted (documented in major medical journals).
We need to separate the concept of a radical scientific theory that is initially questioned but eventually gains acceptance through solid research, as opposed to grotesquely ridiculous woo that’s been around for ages but is never backed by any decent evidence.*
Here’s a nice list of unsupported crankery promoted by Nobel Prize winners.
*Incidentally, the quasi-crystal guy was saluted at the time of his Nobel Prize award by an editorial in the Wall St. Journal, which argued that since his theories were vindicated, it meant that the ideas of global warming denialists should be given greater credence. “They wuz wrong before” is the classic chant of the woo promoter.
WERNSTROM!
I can’t be the only person who read that and immediately thought of the Professy, can I? 
Are the 1870’s in the Modern Age? The Set Theory of Georg Cantor was ridiculed by several of the leading mathematical philosophers of the time.
Eventually David Hilbert gave it his blessing, calling Cantor’s work “The finest product of mathematical genius and one of the supreme achievements of purely intellectual human activity.”
Iffy… He was right that the continents move, but his explanation was entirely wrong. He said that the continents move over the sea floors; he never realized that the sea floors also move.
He wasn’t as wrong as people made him out to be…but it’s hard to claim that he was right enough to deserve any kind of credit.
It’s not really the same thing. There was never any doubt that Cantor was correct regarding what his axioms implied; there was only question about whether the axioms he laid down were appropriate.
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call Atkins a “scientist”, he was a cardiologist who took a known, albeit not popular theory and publicized it after his own anecdotal success with it. To my knowledge, he never did a scientific study or published in a peer-reviewed journal. He did get rich.
[QUOTE=George L. Thorpe, M.D., originally from the Journal of American Medical Association, November 16, 1957]
The simplest to prepare and most easily obtainable high-protein, high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, and the one that will produce the most rapid loss of weight without hunger, weakness, lethargy, or constipation, is made up of meat, fat, and water.
[/QUOTE]
Fascinating wiki - The identity of her first husband was quite interesting Carl Sagan
I figured out plate tectonics when I was 9. Look at a globe, for Pete’s sake. South America fit’s into Africa like two puzzle pieces.
How stupid were geologists back then? No, seriously. They had degrees? In what? Smoking and hating black people?*
*This is what I imagine every white person did with most of their waking hours prior to 1960 or so.
J Harlen Bretz got a lot of flack for his theory behind the Scablands area of eastern Washington state. He theorized in the 1920s that massive floods created the strange geology, but the theory was not fully accepted until the 1950s. I find the creation of the Scablands to be a fascinating story.
In a world where plate tectonics is unknown the idea that two continents thousands of miles apart with vaguely matching shapes (nothing close to “puzzle pieces”) were once joined together would seem far less likely than simple coincidence. Madagascar fits quite nicely into the African coast to the west of it but that is nothing to do with plate tectonics.
Also it’s “fits”, not “fit’s”.
:rolleyes:
Sorry, but overall this post is pretty dumb.