[cycomanic]

The scientist fighting against the establishment is always a popular twist on a discovery. That's why popular science articles often emphasise this aspect. The reality is much more complex and the above happens very rarely. Regarding physics for example, give me the last theory that went against the establishment and took a generation to be accepted. I really can't think of any in the last 80 years. Maybe EPR, or Bells inequality, but that took so long, because experiments could only be done quite recently. I would also argue it is not really a case of research against the establishment.

Also let's remember that the researchers mentioned by others above, were all running successful labs despite their ideas not being widely accepted. The reason why these theories take so long to be accepted is more a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" than "we don't like the theory".

[medstrom]

>Regarding physics for example, give me the last theory that went against the establishment and took a generation to be accepted.

Everett branches ("many worlds")?

[cycomanic]

That's not science in the strict sense, but interpretation (so more philosophy).

AFAIK, so far nobody has come up with a way to devise a test that could falsify any of the interpretations of quantum theory, which really is required to be a valid scientific theory.

Moreover, there has never been much dogma around interpretations of quantum theory. A highly recommended read is Ghost in the Atom by Paul Davies, which consists of interviews with many physicists about their quantum interpretations. It shows that people have had a wide variety of interpretations for a long time. The many world interpretation has become more popular, but it was already around in the 80s and certainly not being ridiculed.