U.S. GMO food labeling bill passes Senate

[PatSeg]

66. In these discussion,

I keep on hearing, is that "peer reviewed" and it dawned on me that throughout history, scientific breakthroughs were frequently rejected and mocked by the scientist's peers.

Michael Nielsen in his article Three Myths About Scientific Peer Review, asserts that it is a myth that peer review is the way we determine what is right and wrong in science. He listed the following examples:

George Zweig’s paper announcing the discovery of quarks, one of the fundamental building blocks of matter, was rejected by Physical Review Letters. It was eventually issued as a CERN report.

Berson and Yalow’s work on radioimmunoassay, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by both Science and the Journal of Clinical Investigation. It was eventually published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

Krebs’ work on the citric acid cycle, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by Nature. It was published in Experientia.

Wiesner’s paper introducing quantum cryptography was initially rejected, finally appearing well over a decade after it was written.
To sum up: there is very little reliable evidence about the effect of peer review available from systematic studies; peer review is at best an imperfect filter for validity and quality; and peer review sometimes has a chilling effect, suppressing important scientific discoveries.

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/

I am quite sure you won't read it, but it is very interesting, especially the part about German physicist Jan Hendrik Schoen. Peer review did not reveal that his many published breakthroughs were fraudulent. Peer review is not always all it is cracked up to be.