skip
Ed Storms was baffled by the brouhaha in the press. He said: "Naturally
the detected amounts are wrong because the measurements are not
sensitive enough to see the expected ratio. What is the advantage to
anyone to mix these two phenomenon?" As I said, the advantage is that
you crush the opposition by associating them with cold fusion. But
Storms, in an uncharacteristically naïve moment, said he does not
understand why anyone would attack research in the newspapers in the
first place. "This situation makes no sense." If these other researchers
feel there is a problem with the experiment, they should discuss it by
e-mail, or publish papers showing an error.
Here is my take on the situation:
Think Zeitgeist. This is the kind of age we live in. This is what
science has come to. When people publish experimental results that
contradict theory, instead of debating the issues according to logic and
textbook knowledge, academic rivals spread false rumors, they threaten
lawsuits, they meddle, and they conduct witch hunt investigations to
derail the research and destroy careers. It worked with cold fusion, so
now they do it every time something new comes along.
Taleyarkhan is being investigated for "academic misconduct" because a
theoretician thinks the experiment contradicts theory. It is now
officially "misconduct" to do experiments that challenge textbook
theory. Theoreticians have appointed themselves the high priests of
science, and an experimentalist who does anything to upset them is not
merely mistaken or foolish, as they said back in 1989. Now he is
unethical, and he must be "investigated" and crushed.
Perhaps, as Schwinger predicted, this will be the death of science.
Science is at a low point, and no one can say when, or if, it will
recover. But I expect it will. Valuable, vital institutions seldom
collapse completely. Usually after they reach an dysfunctional extreme,
a crisis occurs, and then the problems are fixed.
I still think something is odd about the approach taken by the press to
bubble fusion. All fields of science have internal conflict and
questions about the data. These issues are routinely resolved in the
pages of scientific journals and in discussion between scientists. The
press does not get involved and the general public never knows or cares
about the issues. In recent times, the press has taken notice of
emotional scientific issues such as stem cell research and global
warming. General interest in these issues is understandable. However,
why would bubble fusion get press attention and be of interest to anyone
except the few people working on the subject? That is what seems strange
to me. In addition, why would an important university such as Purdue
risk its reputation for academic freedom by initiating a formal
investigation of a minor conflict between professors? Rejection of cold
fusion made sense because the phenomenon has the potential to disrupt
science as well as industry. Bubble fusion has neither possibility. Of
course, Jed might be right. Everyone is slowly being infected by
irrationally by the examples we see in the world in general.
Ed
- Jed
