When two Australians were recently awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine
I was of course very happy.

http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/2005/index.html

I knew, too, that people who use the phrase "consensus science"
perjoratively in reference to HIV science would find comfort in this
outcome.

I was right.

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1128426337.shtml

What I don't understand is that Crichton said:

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it
isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

Helicobacter pylori bacterium and ulcers is consensus science. There is
a consensus that this bacteria causes the majority of stomach ulcers.

According to Crichton's Law it is therefore not science. "If it's
consensus, it isn't science".

Now it got to be consensus exactly because Marshall and Warren could
produce convincing evidence.

I would go so far to say that all scientific Nobel prizes are consensus
science. The Nobel foundation typically waits several years or even
decades after the intitial publication before awarding a Nobel prize.
This was the case for 2005. They wait until there is a consensus.

Crichton confuses reality with his fiction. In his fiction the maverick
is always right. This is good for his book sales but does not reflect
reality.

In reality most mavericks are wrong. In the AIDS field most of the
mavericks contradict each other about what causes AIDS. Logically the
majority are wrong, they can't all be correct.

Chris Noble