On Saturday 08 January 2005 16:34, Harry Veeder wrote: > http://www.technewsworld.com/story/39360.html > > COMMENTARY > > The Big Science Chill > > By Sonia Arrison > TechNewsWorld > 01/07/05 5:00 AM PT > > When smart people in California's tech mecca fail, they pick up the pieces > and the community pats them on the back for taking a risk in the name of > progress. Some entrepreneurs even take a different stab at the same idea > with the hope that they'll be able to do it better. So why does the pure > science community play by different rules? > > > > Many people think of scientific disciplines, such as chemistry or physics, > as purely fact-based endeavors, not concerned with the fuzzy field of > politics. That's rarely the case because when humans are involved, things > often get messy. > > A perfect example is the question of cold fusion. Back in 1989, scientists > Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced they had discovered cold > fusion, or nuclear energy that could be released at room temperature and > would produce clean, cheap energy. A media frenzy followed, but excitement > over the announcement quickly dissipated when others had trouble > replicating their results. > > Whether or not cold fusion will eventually work on a consistent basis is > still up in the air. But the political fallout from the Pons and > Fleischmann announcement was so bad that it almost completely wiped out > research in an extremely important field. Because of this announcement, and > the subsequent failure to reproduce results, cold-fusion research became > stigmatized and regarded by many scientists as a hoax. > > > > What Happened to Persistence? > > In 1999, Time magazine called cold fusion one of the 100 worst ideas of the > century, and others ridiculed it as nothing more than an "Elvis sighting." > But not everyone agrees. Scientists such as SRI International's Michael > McKubre and Peter Hagelstein, who designed the X-ray laser that was to be a > part of President Reagan's "Star Wars" anti-ballistic missile system, are > betting cold fusion can work. And governments around the world are putting > money into research. > > Given that there are smart, competent people on both sides of the debate, > one might wonder what happened to the American attitude of accepting past > failures and trying to build on them. In this respect, the scientific > community could learn a lot from Silicon Valley. > > When smart, well-regarded people in California's tech mecca fail, they pick > up the pieces and the community pats them on the back for taking a risk in > the name of progress. Heck, some entrepreneurs even take a different stab > at the same idea with the hope that they'll be able to do it better. So why > does the pure science community play by different rules? > > Slaves to Data > > Perhaps it's because there's a public perception that scientifically > derived data cannot be subject to interpretation, and that skews behavior. > Or, as some researchers have suggested, maybe it's because the scientific > community acts under a paternalistic type of data-releasing regime that > says results should not be announced to the impressionable public until > they are sanctioned by the top dogs of the group. > > This scientific McCarthyism has a chilling effect on research and could be > holding America back from major scientific breakthroughs. If we could > figure out cold fusion, we'd have a clean, cheap energy source that would > last for an incredibly long time. And that would mean less reliance on oil > exporting countries, as well as a cleaner environment and a better standard > of living. So even if some experts say it's a long shot, isn't it worth > working towards? > > Yet the U.S. Department of Energy continues to tiptoe around the issue, and > the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refuses to grant a patent on any > invention claiming cold fusion. That's almost a categorical denial of any > research money for this important field. Further, getting an article on > cold fusion published in any scientific journal is almost impossible. The > scientific community is starting to look pretty regressive and reactionary. > > Saving Good Ideas > > "We have always been open to proposals that have scientific merit as > determined by peer review," said the Energy Department's James Decker. But > what happens when the peers in question might lose their hot fission > research money if cold fusion were possible? Or consider the comments of an > embittered Fleischmann to a Wired reporter in 1998: "What you have to ask > yourself is who wants this discovery? Do you imagine the seven sisters [the > world's top oil companies] want it? ... And do you really think that the > Department of Defense wants electrochemists producing nuclear reactions in > test tubes?" > > The answer is that Americans want a clean, cheap and abundant energy source > if they can get it. And they certainly don't want some other country, > potentially one with terrorists, to figure it out first. > > Bureaucracy in both the private and public sectors can kill good ideas. > America needs a return to the days when renaissance men and women populated > the field of scientific discovery. If the cold fusion issue is indicative > of where scientific inquiry is today, creativity and thinking outside the > bureaucratic box appear to be sorely needed. Our world depends on it. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Sonia Arrison, a TechNewsWorld columnist, is director of Technology Studies > at the California-based Pacific Research Institute. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
the US Patent Office refuses to patent any cold fusion. How quaint! Last I heard was that they grant 'business method' patents all the time. One worthy was the little turnstile on the check out lanes at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has actually sued other companies for having product carrier turnstiles [lazy susans]. If you can get a patent on fluff like that but not on cold fusion, not to mention all the other patents that have been granted wrongfully on foolishness, then scientific progress has no welcome home in the United States. Better go to a foreign country that is a member of the WTO and get it patented there. Then the US will have to honor it by reciprocity. Standing Bear
