My response: This article is an excellent example of the confluence of sloppy journalism with sloppy science. The journalistic investigators of "cold fusion" were beset by problems similar to those besetting the scientific investigators. The most prominent and early example was Jerry E. Bishop, who, precisely because he was an outstanding investigative science journalist, was elected to receive the American Institute of Physics (AIP) award for science journalism. There was a problem, however: Also because he was an outstanding investigative science journalist, he didn't serve the echo chamber surrounding "cold fusion" and actually discovered, in his investigations, that what was truly sloppy if not fraudulent about the episode was the behavior of the majority of the journalistic and establishment scientific community. His award was therefore attacked by the politicians posing as physicists who had laid their careers on the line slandering and libeling Pons and Fleishcmann. Although they were not able to have his award rescinded, they were able to get the AIP, in their award statement, basically censure Mr. Bishop even as they awarded him.
Truly despicable. On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > citing cold fusion as usual example. > > Scientific fraud, sloppy science – yes, they happen > > > http://theconversation.com/scientific-fraud-sloppy-science-yes-they-happen-13948 >
