argument could be made that
Van Valen, 1973
I am aware that I treat a subject currently unpopular. I do so, first of all, simply because it has fascinated me ever since the New York City public schools taught me Haeckel's doctrine, that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, fifty years after it had been abandoned by science. Yet I am not so detached a scholar that I would pursue it for the vanity of personal interest alone. I would not have spent some of the best years of a scientific career upon it, were I not convinced that it should be as important today as it has ever been.
I am also not so courageous a scientist that I would have risked so much effort against a wall of truly universal opprobrium. But the chinks in the wall surfaced as soon as I probed. I have had the same, most curious experience more than twenty times: I tell a colleague that I am writing a book about parallels between ontogeny and phylogeny. He takes me aside, makes sure that no one is looking, checks for bugging devices, and admits in markedly lowered voice: "You know, just between you, me, and that wall, I think that there really is