I gave a talk last week on decoherence, just working out an explicit example where we can almost exactly solve the combined particle/measurement device system. The idea that wave collapse is unnecessary was not uncontroversial.
A quote from before I even gave the talk: "I don't believe you."
Well, Cramer (the one I cited) for one. David Mermin. Cerf and Adami. Roland Omnes. John Preskill. How many do you want?
> I gave a talk last week on decoherence
To what audience?
As for the physicists you cite, the ones I recognize seem to work on either quantum information or foundations of QM. Decoherence is far more accepted in these fields than in the rest of physics.
BTW, collapse is easily debunked: take a two-slit experiment a put a detector at one slit. Interference is destroyed for all photons despite the "fact" that only half the photons "actually" interact with the detector. Collapse cannot account for this. (I put "fact" and "actually" in scare quotes because in true fact all the photons interact with the detector, but not according to the collapse theory.)