The question deserves serious consideration. To what extent is "science" shackled by dogma, a refusal to publish research that "goes against the grain"? And if fresh research never gets published, how can science advance? Dr. Hugh Henry considers the question. Some excerpts:
In today's society, we often look to science as an unbiased source of truth, regulated by the peer review process. Unfortunately, the phenomenon of publication bias—well-documented in the scientific literature—permeates a variety of scientific studies. To put it one way, certain points of view are more likely to be published than others for reasons other than the quality of research.
For example, the authors of a 2015 meta-analysis of US National Institutes of Health trials pinpointed publication bias as the reason why we overestimate the effectiveness of antidepressant medications. Another 2015 meta-analysis of the social cost of carbon (a concept related to global warming) found that contrary data was often suppressed which "might create an upward bias in the literature."1 The authors of the study also found that "the evidence for selective reporting is stronger for studies published in peer-reviewed journals than for unpublished papers."
. . . Science recently published the results of a massive study with more than 250 coauthors "estimating the reproducibility of psychological science."4 After conducting replications of 100 studies that were published in three psychology journals, the researchers found only 39 percent of the effects replicated the original result. Reproducibility is one of the three pillars of science.5 An experiment repeated under the same conditions should produce similar results; if it doesn't, then it's back to the drawing board. Yet it appears 61 percent of psychology studies fail this test. These data support an earlier analysis that found a strong publication bias in favor of human-caused global warming in articles published in Science and Nature.2