A number of web sites have compared the situation with Wakefield and
his claims that vaccines cause autism to the situation with cold
fusion. Here is an example; this article has been widely disseminated:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028101_The_Lancet_Dr_Wakefield.html
This is a complicated subject. Many people who feel their cause has
been oppressed by mainstream science point to cold fusion as an
example of how this happens. Sometimes they are right, but more often
they are wrong. Examples of people who are wrong include many "free
energy" claims such as magic motors, people trying to overthrow
relativity, and some creationist claims. People often compare the
situation with Mills to cold fusion, although Mills himself takes
pains to distance himself from cold fusion. If his claims are true
then I would say the comparison is valid whether he likes it or not.
The thing is, cold fusion is mainstream, replicated legitimate
science, whereas the vaccine claims were not replicated, so they are
not valid. They are like polywater: they might have been true, but it
turns they were not. This distinction is lost on people who advocate
the vaccine hypothesis. It is also lost on skeptical scientists who
condemn cold fusion without knowing anything about it, such as
Professor Jay M. Pasachoff, who professes to be a skeptic. I am
skeptical about his skepticism. See:
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/local/ci_14337993
You might say the situation is a mirror image of what these people
believe it to be. They think they are on the same side as Fleischmann
and Pons, but no cold fusion researcher would agree with them. It can
be difficult to draw lines in academic disputes. There were some
long-running bitter academic fights in the early days of Darwinian
evolution over subjects that could not be decided at the time,
because -- for example -- Mendel's laws of heredity had not yet been
discovered. In retrospect it is clear that everyone on all sides of
these debates was wrong. They simply did not have the knowledge
necessary to settle the issue. What interests me is to read original
source letters by people like Asa Gray, who was ostensibly opposed to
evolution in some ways, although he had tremendous respect for Darwin
and they were close friends. Gray's views were complicated and
difficult to characterize, especially when you try to characterize
them in the light of modern knowledge and modern social conditions (a
big mistake).
Wakefield is accused of academic misconduct. Such accusations against
the minority party in a academic dispute can be treacherous, as we
all know from cold fusion. It appears that Wakefield had undisclosed
intellectual property interests in rival vaccine. If so, he may have
acted unethically. Still, I would prefer that such accusations be
left out of the discussion. Even when a person is guilty as charged,
the argument is still ad hominem, so it has no place in a technical
debate. To take an imaginary example from cold fusion, even if it
were shown that a prominent skeptical opponent was secretly being
paid by the plasma fusion program, his arguments would still have be
considered on their own merits only, without consideration about what
motivated him to raise these arguments. It is difficult to
compartmentalize your mind and ignore the fact that the person is a
jerk and liar (for hiding his conflict of interest), but you have to
do your best.
- Jed
