It was refreshing to read the comments of David Horrobin in "Discouraging Hypotheses Slows Progress." I have thought about this problem many times and feel that a journal--perhaps called Idea--might help. An article considered for publication would not be peer reviewed and would have to meet only the following criteria: Is it written in readable English? Is it free of nonscience motives? Is it free of perpetual motion machines? Is it new?

Everything should be left to the reader. Most peculiarly, many of those who may agree publicly with the views expressed in Horrobin's article will be quick to dismiss papers of opposing views that they review alone and anonymously in their office. These are the basic characteristics of man, I fear--a mixture of jealousy and conceit: "If the idea were any good, I would have had it earlier." Refereeing new ideas impartially is simply not possible. Conversely, there are...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?