[DonHopkins]

Is there some truth to what you say? "There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak."

If you don't mean "literally speak", then what exactly do you mean? What qualifies as "speaking"? Testifying in front of Congress on live national television? Writing an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal? Boasting of having a total of 12,000 citations of her publications, and a blog that gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments? None of that counts as speech?

First, define "speech", then list the names of highly trained scientists who aren't allowed to speak because they don't fully support the party line.

[mistermann]

Let's approach it this way, in an attempt to clarify where it is we disagree: do you believe there is a single instance in recent scientific history of peer pressure being used to encourage/discourage certain ideas within the scientific community?

Don't forget, sometimes you don't see certain things because they have been eliminated, and a natural reaction might be to assume that they never existed. The idea that disagreements occur in professional environments I don't think is very controversial on HN, but what I seem to be hearing today is that HN believes that these disagreements do not occur in the field of science. There is certainly a very long history of disagreement in science, it is one of the primary strengths of the scientific method. And yet now, it has disappeared? That would certainly appear to be the case, all I'm saying is, I doubt that is the actual reality.

[DonHopkins]

Please stop trying to move the goalposts, and go back and 1) define what you mean by "not allowed to speak", and 2) list more names of scientists who are "not allowed to speak".

[Chris2048]

Please prove the goalposts have been moved...