This doesn't exactly sound good for Taleyarkhan.
When the executive summary of the report is that the researcher in
question behaved in an exemplary fashion and no further questions about
the quality of the research remain people do not say they will conduct
"any further action" as an "internal matter".
This isn't just about Taleyarkhan's possible culpability. It's just as much
about the other two physicists who had issues with Rusi's work, (one
perhaps the head of the department.) What they did was to go behind Rusi's
back, and also circumvented the administration, and aired their gripes to a
reporter instead of escalating their differences internally to the U
admininstration, which should have happened in the first place.
The issues were largely personal, not scientific. The other two physicists
were not getting along with Rusi. Rusi became unresponsive to their
"requests" and then he reacted belligerently to them.
After the blow up, one of the other two physicists claimed that they were
"misquoted" by Nature and then within hours, both of them refused to
respond to any other press requests - very suspicious behavior.
Putterman just "happened" to have fit into the picture nicely to give the
conflict some "science" behind it. Be sure to read the IEEE article. Tells
a lot about Puttermans "replication."
http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/MediaTrackOfThePurdueBubbleFusionStory.htm
Reminds me of Fleischmann to Lewis in Los Angeles on May 8, 1989. "The
horror of the Caltech cell was revealed to me. I said to Nate Lewis, 'You
can't do it this way.'"
