What bothers me about science today is that scientists, instead of welcoming new technology with open minds, denounce inventions as wrong even when they turn out to work.

Me, "This is what bothers me about science. You have a new discovery announced and it is either denounced as a false effect as Cold Fusion was in 1989 or you have a peer reviewed article about the EM-Drive that shows the device does work and yet for both of these discoveries you have mainstream scientists denouncing that either one was possible. Now we know that something was going on in 1989 and we know from the Chinese that the Em-Drive works in space. So why is it that there are so many scientists claiming when new technology is found that it must be a mistake? 
Respected scientists don't believe that there could be new power sources or rocket engines because for some reason they go against what is known at the time. 
For Cold Fusion, it really was labeling it Cold Fusion that made a lot of scientists angry who believed Hot fusion (Sun Fusion) was the only way to produce Fusion. If Cold fusion turned out to be true then all there years trying to make Hot Fusion work would be for nought. In the end it turned out that this Cold Fusion really was (LENR) Low Energy Nuclear Reactions; which in itself might be the wrong name to use too because scientists are still not sure what is going on here. All they know is when you put together a metal,[like palladium or nickel, in bulk, thin films or powder; and deuterium, hydrogen, or both, in the form of water, gas or plasma] and add an electric current excess heat is generated that shouldn't be but is. This excess heat can then be used to generate electricity. This data has been shown at many different labs around the world yet Science denounced it until now. Think of all the time that was lost that could have been used bringing this technology to the consumer. This energy source was researched underground because no researcher wanted to be denounced as a research heretic. 
 Then you have the Em-Drive, another technology that has also been denounced. It uses electricity to power microwaves which when bounced around in a rocket exhaust cone produces measurable thrust. The technology has been around since 1999 has been tested extensively in England but has only now gained attention by being tested by NASA and research labs in Russia and China. In fact the Chinese have demonstrated it works in Space. But once again you had mainstream scientists denouncing the technology as going against known scientific laws. I understand that you have to respect scientific laws but these laws are human laws. And we as humans can be flawed. So maybe there is something going on here that we just don't understand where by the Em-Drive does not violate the scientific laws. But if we just cry out, it should not work, even though for some reason it does, well I think real science is not being carried out. 
Every possible new technology has to be tested and retested to either show it does or does not work, instead of just assuming because it does not fit into known science so it should not work. You never know what you might find. And it is a discredit to true pioneers who are trying to advance society even when regular scientist say, no its not possible."  


From article, "It's Not Cold Fusion... But It's Something"

(A surprising opportunity to explore something new in chemistry and physics has emerged. In March 1989, electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, at the University of Utah, announced that they had "established a sustained nuclear fusion reaction" at room temperature. By nearly all accounts, the event was a fiasco. The fundamental reason was that the products of their experiments looked nothing like deuterium-deuterium (D+D) fusion.  

In the following weeks, Caltech chemist Nathan Lewis sharply criticized Fleischmann and Pons in a symposium, a press release, a one-man press conference at the American Physical Society meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, and during his oral presentation at the APS meeting. Despite Lewis' prominence in the media spotlight, he never published a peer-reviewed critique of the peer-reviewed Fleischmann-Pons papers, and for good reason. Lewis' critique of the Fleischmann-Pons experiment was based on wrong guesses and assumptions.

Richard Petrasso, a physicist at MIT, took Fleischmann and Pons to task for their claimed gamma-ray peak. Petrasso and the MIT team, after accusing Fleischmann and Pons of fraud in the Boston Herald, later published a sound and well-deserved peer-reviewed critique of what had become multiple versions of the claimed peak.

From this dubious beginning, to the surprise of many people, a new field of nuclear research has emerged: It offers unexplored opportunities for the scientific community. Data show that changes to atomic nuclei, including observed shifts in the abundance of isotopes, can occur without high-energy accelerators or nuclear reactors. For a century, this has been considered impossible. In hindsight, glimpses of the new phenomena were visible 27 years ago.)