Dean's World

In yesterday's discussion of the (probable) junk science of Randell Mills, several people brought up the concept of cold fusion in a non-mocking way. Not because Randell Mills is promising cold fusion, but some brought up cold fusion as similar junk science--and a few gave a tentative defense of the subject.

This led me to the home page of MIT Professor Peter L. Hagelstein, and then to this interesting writeup in the Washington Post. And by the way, although the story doesn't say, the DOE released its report on cold fusion in December of last year, basically saying that they'd consider research applications on the subject through the normal peer review process but wouldn't start any direct projects on it.

I'm still more than a little skeptical but this seems to fit with an uncomfortable pattern that's been noted in a lot of other areas of research: researchers who go off the beaten path to study things or take positions that aren't warmly embraced by their colleague are often stigmatized and denied any respect or funding. This is troublesome.

To quote from a paper from a similar maverick:

"The peer review system derives its power from the little known practice of governments to deputize their authority to distribute funds for research to committees of "experts". These experts are academic researchers distinguished by outstanding contributions to the current establishment. They alone review the merits of research applications from their peers, and they have the right to elect each other to review committees. Outwardly, this "peer review system" appears to the unsuspecting government and taxpayer as the equivalent of a jury system – free of all conflicts of interest. But, in view of the many professional and commercial investments in and benefits from their expertise, and even of the rewards from their universities and institutions for the corresponding overheads and partnerships – all legal in the US since president Reagan – "peer reviewers" do not fund applications that challenge their own interests...Since "peer review" is protected by anonymity, does not allow the applicant personal representation or an independent representative, nor a say or even a veto in the selection of the "jury", and does not allow an appeal, its powers to defend the orthodoxy are unlimited. The corporate equivalent of academia’s "peer review system" would be to give General Motors and Ford the authority to review and veto all innovations by less established carmakers competing for the consumer."

"Even the professional journals and the science writers of the public media comply with the interests of government- funded majorities because they depend on their monthly "scientific breakthroughs", the lucrative advertisements from their companies, and the opinion of their subscribers."

I'm more than a little skeptical of the cold fusion claims, but to be honest I'm increasingly even more skeptical of the system we have in place now where mavericks with new ideas can be quietly slapped down without even a chance at being heard, and where one mistake can ruin a career. Sonia Arrison had a good piece on this earlier this year, nothing something that's obvious to those of us who've worked in high tech most of our lives: mavericks in high tech, when they fail, generally are helped up onto their feet, dusted off, and congratulated for at least making an attempt and having taught others something valuable: their approach didn't work. Yet people in more traditional areas of research instead are treated as pariahs. Why?

Max Planck observed that, often, the only way to make certain advances in science was wait for certain people to die. "Science advances one coffin at a time" I believe he said.

I would think a more open jury system and an appeals process for funding applications would definitely help alleviate some of that.