Let me describe this in a more organized fashion. Profs may be guilty of a whole spectrum of misbehavior, ranging from trivial to reprehensible. I have no idea where on this scale de Bivort's friend is, so it is unfair for me to condemn him. I am just using him a hypothetical example. As I see it, these are the major categories:
CATEGORY 1. For people who badmouth or attack cold fusion, or any research, without knowing about it: Badmouthing in private. Unimportant. If this is all de Bivort's friend is doing, and he doesn't feel like reading cold fusion papers, that is his business. I have no objection. Badmouthing in public or when a reporter asks. Annoying. Writing a mass media article, or lecturing undergrads. Unethical. Attacking the reputation of cold fusion researchers. Downright evil. Firing researchers, threatening them with deportation. A prof should be fired for doing this sort of thing. CATEGORY 2. People who know something about cold fusion and who are aware that it is real (or probably real): Badmouthing it private or public or doing any of those other things is unethical. Garwin is the only person I know to be in this category. He reported to the Pentagon that he found no error at SRI, but told the public on CBS “60 Minutes” that he thinks there is an error. CATEGORY 3. People who have read a lot about the research but sincerely believe that all of the results are mistaken or fraud. As long as they do not persecute researchers they have done nothing wrong. They are incompetent in my opinion, but that is not an ethical issue. SEPARATE CATEGORY. Scientists who are aware of the academic politics, persecution and oppression, yet who do not speak out against it. If they are afraid to speak out, this is moral cowardice. It is understandable. If they do not care or they think it is okay to persecute people to get ahead in the academic rat-race, this is reprehensible. The above only applies to professional scientists. Bloggers, journalists, and amateur nitwits who edit Wikipedia have no training or background, so they cannot be held responsible for stupid mistakes, ignorance, logical errors, blatant politics, distortion, or violations of academic ethics. They never learned that you are supposed to study a subject carefully before reaching a conclusion. - Jed
