Institute Matters: With the public controversy over hacked e-mail messages from climate scientists, scientific integrity has, for some people, been put deeply in question.
Arguably the fundamental issue boils down to something described in a comment from the late Richard Feynman. He spoke of
"a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked.... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.... If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it."
This quotation (from his lecture, Cargo Cult Science) appeared the other day in a Wall Street Journal letter to the editor from someone who sees it as a reminder of what climate scientists have forgotten. What I think, however—despite the lapses revealed in the hacked messages—is that it shows what climate scientists have remembered.
Science works the same in all its fields. If the integrity of science in general weren't assured to a very high degree—in the laboratory, in scientific publications, and in the practical consequences to which science leads—then neither the critics of climate scientists nor the rest of us could be using transistors, lasers, optical fibers, or pharmaceuticals. We couldn't fly with only a one-in-a-million chance of mishap, and our bridges and skyscrapers could fall down, and polio would still be feared.
Science is by its very nature an exploratory, trial-and-error venture which is also--sooner or later in every case--a self-correcting exercise. Ukrainian agronomist Trofim Lysenko's failed agricultural theories of the 1930s and 1940s and, more recently, such concepts as polywater, cold fusion, and human clones are examples of scientific pronouncements that were eventually proven wrong or fraudulent by the step-by-step process of examination, review, and repetition.
It's true that scientists are human and that the science enterprise can suffer from the frailties of any other human endeavor. I would rather think that scientists are less susceptible than are people in other professions by jealousies, excessive ego, and the desire for fame and fortune.
But these human faults do also affect scientists, which means that science sometimes suffers. Nevertheless, science recovers quickly because of its well-proven correction mechanisms that apply universally across disciplinary, political, and cultural boundaries.
The current attack on the integrity of climate science is based on the proposition that this particular field somehow operates with a special, deep disrespect for the skepticism principle that Feynman advocated in the comment quoted above.
I don't believe it.
H. Frederick Dylla is the executive director of the American Institute of Physics, which publishes Physics Today. The views expressed here are the personal views of the author.
"Cold fusion" has been known as the greatest scientific fiasco of our time. However, the analogy of "cold fusion" as bad science no longer applies as it once did.
Steve B. Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times
I suppose I should have picked another example or carefully noted that most cold fusion studies that claimed to be directed as new energy source were "mistaken" and not intentionally fraudulent.
When I was working at Princeton in fusion research, I was part of the team that measured minimal or no gamma or neutron products from highly deuterated solids. There are of course interesting physical phenomena with fractoemission in solids and within cavitating liquids but not as nuclear energy sources.
Fred Dylla
I question your assertion that cold fusion is a "pronouncement" that has been found to be either "wrong' or "fraudulent".
The way cold fusion was introduced to the world was certainly ineffective and the follow-up research ran into genuine problems -- including an inability by other scientists to replicate the original experiment.
Since its inception, much follow-up work has been carried out and has been reported in the scientifc literature.
Missing, as I understand it, is a compelling and generally accepted theory of what produced the initial phenomenon.
Lawrence de Bivort
Mr. Dylla is correct about the need for skepticism about one's own experimental results and theories.
In the original work on the "so-called cold fusion", there was measurement, by electrochemists, of excess heat. These experts in chemistry and calorimetry found it impossible to explain the excess heat with chemistry and concluded that it was likely nuclear in origin. However, they were not experts in measuring nuclear radiation, and they incorrectly reported significant neutron flux.
I personally believe that the danger of global warming is great, but it's essential that the science not be contaminated by belief in that. We need to know the truth, and the path to that is the path of science, which involves rigorous honesty with the reporting of all results, including inconvenient ones, not just those considered to confirm expectations. It cuts both ways.
Fred,
You're right in saying that cold fusion researchers, aka cold fusioneers, are 'mistaken'. They consistently ignore the readly available conventional explanations for their collection of anomalies, and refuse to do anything but interpret them in light of some mysterious nuclear reaction(s). The problem today is that while the mainstream decided the issue was settled and over long ago, the dedicated fanatic believers have persisted, and today, they have become more vocal than ever. With no one to voice the opposition, they have convinced many that there is none. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, 'All it takes for pseudoscience to prosper is for real scientists to do nothing.'
kirk Shanahan
Fred Dylla wrote: "There are of course interesting physical phenomena with fractoemission in solids and within cavitating liquids but not as nuclear energy sources."
Yes, something seems to be going on but it is not understood. Furthermore, experimental results, even those reported by recognized experts, are often not reproducible. I think that attempts to verify claims made by experts should be encouraged.
The so-called “colld-fusion episode” is unprecedented in many ways, especially from the point of view of sociology. It will become an important part of the history of science, no matter what.
Ludwik Kowalski