Does "fringe" science have anything to do with the so-called "pseudo-sciences" like alchemy and astrology that have accompanied the evolution of the sciences from childhood to maturity? For example, Newton, with all his insights into time and space, believed that atoms were organisms!  Moreover, what about alternative medicine-- for instance, acupuncture, chiropractics, and yes, even faith-healing--? 

There is, as we know a serious ambivalence with "fringe" science. It can, indeed, go in the direction rightly pointed out by Nelson, as in the sense mentioned by Arthur. Such an ambivalence - to be sure - lies in a quick words game.

Over against mainstream science, "new" sciences can have various origins. An anomaly (Kuhn is one of them). But probably other gates should be seriously investigated.

In the main time, the peril persists as to to demarcation criteria about science and pseudo-science.

You are right on the mark, dear Carlos. Sometimes the line blurs between science and pseudo-science-- or, if you prefer, science fiction-- and scientists borrow ideas for cutting-edge research from science fiction. 

Well, and as to the question: the future of fringe science depends, I take it, on two main factors: the very scientific community (the "serious" one, although not necessarily the mainstreamed), and the society. This is one more reason why the social studies on S&T are crucial, and make a sharp contrast with the classical, orthodox philosophy of science (restricted just to the insiders and the connoisseurs).

"Fringe science" has been with us for some time as peripheral or something on- the-side and therefore not mainstream: it is rarely the case nowadays that someone undertakes multiple parallel investigations or pursuits, believing that focus and attention pays greater dividends. True perhaps in the sense of efficiency, but not necessarily in terms of effectiveness. Focus/single-mindedness is often the enemy of breakthroughs:

1. As was attested by the fascinating and productive lives of polymaths & mavericks: Leornardo da Vinci, John von Neumann, Herbert A. Simon etc.

2. "Serious" research was the midwife to these spinoffs: Velcro, Teflon etc.

That is why, "fringe science" by definition, is a notion alien to the pragmatic  (e.g. bureaucrats and administrators). Society is starting to see the revenge of the nerds when the fringe becomes the new "in". The future has always been bleak for the "fringe scientist", but fringe science will continue to persists alongside the "mainstream". 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic[or may I add: pseudo-science]"- Arthur C. Clarke.

Enthused about futurism and fringe science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

Keeping our enthusiasm in check:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257597625_Beyond_the_fringe_When_science_moves_from_innovative_to_nonsense

Article Beyond the fringe: When science moves from innovative to nonsense