Trevor Pinch delves into the scientific controversy of cold fusion in his essay “Cold Fusion and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge”. What I found most interesting in this essay was the fact that two chemists in a physicist’s world were trying to conduct something that physical science had already deemed theoretically impossible, and the result was a scientific gold-rush. This “test-tube fusion” was too good to be true, and the result was many tarnished reputations and red-faces. It seems that emotion played a significant and unsatisfactory role in the preemptive reporting and hopeful interpretation of Fleischmann’s and Pons’ ground-breaking results.
My curiosity was driven by the quick shift from the overly-optimistic frenzy in the scientific community to the heated debate on the realities of cold fusion. I believe that the initial emotion-driven response to the prospect of cold fusion led to excitement, proved by the quick attempts to replicate the cold fusion experiment and the equally quick reports of similarly false-positive results. When the fallacies of the experimental techniques became evident, cold fusion turned out to be fool’s gold; once it was brought into the light of day, it could be seen for what it was. Questions that were raised in my mind in response to this were as follows: How has skepticism within the scientific community increased since March of 1989? Are there any other examples of scientific fool’s gold since the cold fusion controversy that proves skepticism has not increased to a productive level?
 |
| Robert L. Park of What's New |
Quickly after beginning my research, it was obvious that modern scientific skepticism had been influenced by the cold fusion controversy of 1989. In Robert L. Park’s What’s New weekly column, reports of scientific happenings are discussed. Being a professor of physics and former chair at the University of Maryland, his opinion undoubtedly holds weight in the scientific community. When Science was preparing to release an article on sonofusion, Dr. Park heavily discredited the concept without reading the article, predicting it to become "a repeat of the cold fusion fiasco” (Boerner, 2003). The immediate rejection of scientific results simply on the basis that it challenges a long-standing theory creates the concept of scientific overskepticism (new concept). An increased skeptical stance on the part of Dr. Park caused an immediate dismissal of a new fusion technology prospect.
 |
| Dr. Taleyarkhan with his Sonofusion Reactor |
Robert L. Park is truly a skeptic, evidenced by his many critiques in the weekly column What's New. However, does his opinion reflect that of the scientific community? In search of more evidence of scientific overskepticism, I came across a research paper presented at the 11th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal-Hydraulics titled Sonofusion – fact or fiction?. In this paper, it is concluded that “thermonuclear fusion occurs and is quite repeatable” (Lahey, 2005). This report conflicts with Park’s view, but more importantly, contains a much more modest approach to investigating and reporting a scientific finding than what had occurred in 1989 with Fleischmann and Pons fusion experiments. Park’s views appear to stand alone, and science moves forward.
So how has the skepticism within the scientific community increased since March of 1989? I believe that the cold fusion controversy has created a sense of serious doubt among some. A cycle of mistrust has been sewn between scientists researching abstract concepts and those who recall what happens when initial findings are found to be misleading or inaccurate. The scientists who make conclusions from data are less likely to share results and implications because of the mistrust they have for the overly skeptical, and skeptics are less likely to credit results with legitimate findings. This mistrust between the researchers leads to a biased assimilation of the results; the challenge to a theory alone prevents the interpreters of the data to see meaningful implications of the research. So, is the overall scientific skepticism currently at a level that is facilitative of effective research? Moving forward, I think that this in an important question to consider.
Returning to my second question, are there any other examples of scientific fool’s gold since the cold fusion controversy? Finding examples that were similar to the cold fusion controversy of 1989 proved to be difficult. Although faulty experimental techniques and false hopes are sure to have occurred, the widespread gold-rush effect was absent. Did the scientific community learn from its mistake? I believe that in a sense, this is true. Research has been approached with modesty and transparency and the results have been met with (mostly) moderate skepticism. This has created an environment which facilitates healthy challenges to long-standing theories.
The scientific community was shaken-up by Fleischmann and Pons. The result was a more modest approach to research data and more skepticism in interpreting results. Scientists have taken a reactive stance; they have made a mistake, and developed as a result. In some cases, overskepticism has resulted, disregarding any significant research. Conclusively, I think that we have yet to see the end of faulty research and misinterpretation and the resulting disappointment, but as a whole, the scientific community has become more balanced and systematic in challenging theories.
References
Pinch, T. (1998). Essays in the study of scientific discourse. (pp. 73-87). London: Ablex Publishing Company.
Boerner, R. (2003). Seven warning signs of bogus skepticism. Retrieved from http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Skepticbogus/index.html
Lahey, R. T., Taleyarkhan, R. P., & Nigmatulin, R. I. (2005). Sonofusion – fact or fiction?. The 11 th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal-Hydraulics, Retrieved from http://homepages.rpi.edu/~laheyr/Sonofusion%20Paper-pdf_Lahey_NURETH-11.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment