> These simplified “one researcher caused an entire field to go astray for decades” explanations are much too pat for me to have any confidence in them.

Right, monocausal explanations in-general will set-off my skept-o-sense too; but then my mind made me think of another example: Andrew Wakefield (except that AW succeeded more at convincing Facebook-moms than the scientific establishment - but still harmed society just as much, IMO)