>>So I guess he considers the church banning his book, putting him on trial and forcing him to recant his research is not an effort to suppress the research?
>>
>>This is like saying some KKK members were once unhappy about black people, but made no effort to opress them.
>>
>>If this is an example of his keen perception, then I pass.
>
>The research was not supressed. They were very upset about his conclusions and publications, and used the powers (improper by modern standards) of a theocratic government to persecute them.

Yes, technically, I suppose they suppressed him, not the research. Although banning the book does seem a little like suppressing the research. Anyway, it's too fine a distinction for me. AFAIC, you suppress the researcher, you suppress the research. Anything else is a lawyer's argument, and not worth the ink he used to say it.