You don’t need Panidealism to realize that scientific censorship is bad. All you need is utility theory. Be as skeptical as you’d like personally when examining a theory, but if it has any plausibility whatsoever, don’t you dare censor it.

Here’s something that was recently published that may very well be a plausible cure for Alzheimer’s disease. It appears theoretically sound to someone in the same general field but lacking expert knowledge of the pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s (in this case, me – I do biomedical research on the human brain, but of a different type):

http://www.jneuroinflammation.com/content/5/1/2

Critics wonder why the work was accepted for publication, as it mainly focuses on results in treatment of a single subject. However, subsequent analysis has indicated that it works on other subjects as well:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080109091102.htm

Let’s say that peer review makes a mistake of some sort. We have two potential outcomes:

False positive: Paper with unsound theory accepted. A few scientists spend a few months of effort subjecting it to experimentation. Empirical evidence refutes the theory. Perhaps a new treatment is designed based on the theoretical results of the original paper or on the experimental data gathered to refute it. Total waste is a bit of effort (and it’s not really all a waste).

False negative: A cure for Alzheimer’s never sees the light of day.

I think it’s fairly clear which mistake is worse.

From the perspective of utility theory, any time you censor an idea whose implications are not negated by a near-infinitesimal probability of truth, you lose.