Gentlemen,
Below is the letter and message sent to the Yale Daily. Thanks for your
support and your willingness to have your name attached. 29 people sent
their names, which were too many for this letter. As a result I made an
arbitrary choice. Each person whose name is attached was sent a copy at
the same time so that the Editor has your address in case she wants to
check on your willingness. The whole list and any additional names will
be attached to a letter to Time, which I will soon send to you for your
approval. This may do no good, but it is fun.
Regards,
Ed
Editor of the Yale Daily News
I'm submitting the following letter with 8 attached names of people from
institutions in this country as well as in other countries who agree
with the issues raised in this letter and have personal knowledge of the
subject. I can provide you with many more names if you wish. I do not
believe that Prof. Kevles has addressed the important issues of this
subject in her response. By this letter, I would like to give her a
chance to do so.
Sincerely,
Dr. Edmund Storms
The Proper Role of Scholars in Examining Science.
Recent news articles about corruption in science and recent letters to
the Editor of the Yale Daily News have revealed an important difference
in how corruption is viewed by people who have personal knowledge of a
subject and by those who accept common knowledge. Letters provided by
Dr. Storms and Prof. Kevles about “cold fusion” give a timely and
important example for discussing this basic issue.
The common knowledge is that "cold fusion", as first claimed by Profs.
Pons and Fleischmann in 1989, is an example of bad science that was
subsequently shown to be wrong. This attitude has been institutionalized
in books and in articles written by uninformed people. Repeated use of
the myth as an example of bad science continues to add to the false
understanding, even though their basic claim has been shown to be valid
and has been replicated many times. Consequently, in spite of new
information, the myth grows because scholars and reporters do not
re-examine the subject, instead accept what is considered to be common
knowledge.
This approach is especially dangerous when it is used by any professor
working at a major university. It is dangerous because it inhibits new
discovery and discussion of novel ideas. It is dangerous because science
will not advance if new work is subjected to rejection, ridicule, and
criticism just because it is not complete and consistent with
established knowledge. All professors should know this because it is
their job to advance knowledge, in addition to encouraging high
standards. The challenge is to make these two roles work together, not
be in conflict.
Prof. Jean Paul Biberian
Université d'Aix-Marseille II
France
Dr. Dan CHICEA,
Associate Professor,
Head of the Physics Department,
University "Lucian Blaga", Sibiu, Romania
Prof. Fangil A. Gareev,
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research,
Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia
Prof. Brian Josephson
Department of Physics
University of Cambridge
Cambridge, UK
Prof. Melvin Miles
Department of Chemistry
University of LaVerne
LaVerne, CA
Research Prof. David J. Nagel
The George Washington University
Washington DC
Dr. Edmund Storms
Santa Fe, NM
Los Alamos National Laboratory, retired
Dr. Wu-Shou Zhang
Associate Professor, Institute of Chemistry
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Beijing 100080, China
REFERENCES
B. Kevles article in Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602279.html
(Registration required)
Article reprinted here:
http://indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=85789 (No
registration needed)
Storms letter in Yale Daily News:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=31250
Kevles response: http://yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=31289
