For a good case of science fraud, it’s hard to beat the Cold Fusion controversy. Cold Fusion refers to a series of experiments published in 1989 by Fleischmann and Pons (Fleischmann, Martin; Pons, Stanley (1989), "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium", Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 261 (2A): 301–308, doi:10.1016/0022-0728(89)80006-3). They claimed to have observed “anomalous heat production ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes in their apparatus, which fit on a lab table top. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[2] The experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode.” (Taken from the Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion),
However, a large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many positive replications, the publication of several reasons of why it was unlikely to occur, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts, led to loss of credibility by most workers in the field (see for example, Browne, M. (May 3, 1989), "Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion", New York Times, http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html, retrieved 2008-05-25). By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead
However there continues to be a small group of researchers who are investigating cold fusion work and who publish in non-peer reviewed journals. Mainstream scientists consider Cold Fusion Research to be a dead end and are probably not aware of any research being done in the field, which has had no successes.
So why bring this up? I feel there are many similarities between Cold Fusion research and the Researchers who try to disprove climate change. They are funded outside of the normal publicly scrutinized channels such as the NSF, mostly by energy companies, and they do not publish in peer review Journals. The difference, of course, is that conservative wings of the Republican Party have not held up the banner of Cold Fusion as the most important scientific discovery of the new century, which I think is a shame. Rather than waste their time trying to defend a science which mostly seems to say; ”No ignore what that thermometer says and don’t look at all those melting glaciers. Hey you, listen to me,” they could be supporting some kind of crazy research which at least has the honorable goal of producing clean energy from a new untried and apparently limitless source. What a pity we can’t harness the wind power of political demagogy.
However, a large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many positive replications, the publication of several reasons of why it was unlikely to occur, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts, led to loss of credibility by most workers in the field (see for example, Browne, M. (May 3, 1989), "Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion", New York Times, http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html, retrieved 2008-05-25). By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead
However there continues to be a small group of researchers who are investigating cold fusion work and who publish in non-peer reviewed journals. Mainstream scientists consider Cold Fusion Research to be a dead end and are probably not aware of any research being done in the field, which has had no successes.
So why bring this up? I feel there are many similarities between Cold Fusion research and the Researchers who try to disprove climate change. They are funded outside of the normal publicly scrutinized channels such as the NSF, mostly by energy companies, and they do not publish in peer review Journals. The difference, of course, is that conservative wings of the Republican Party have not held up the banner of Cold Fusion as the most important scientific discovery of the new century, which I think is a shame. Rather than waste their time trying to defend a science which mostly seems to say; ”No ignore what that thermometer says and don’t look at all those melting glaciers. Hey you, listen to me,” they could be supporting some kind of crazy research which at least has the honorable goal of producing clean energy from a new untried and apparently limitless source. What a pity we can’t harness the wind power of political demagogy.
