The g factor
The g factor
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/381729b0
复制
发表时间：
1996-06
期刊：
影响因子：
64.8
通讯作者：
A. Jensen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Jensen
Sm-The News story" Scientists lose cold fusion libel case" and part of a leading article in the same issue (Nature 380, 369 & 367; 1996) might convince readers that an Italian court has actually found a proof of misconduct by Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons and three Italian scientists (two of whom are the present writers). In fact, the court's verdict, against which we shall appeal, falls short of your hasty conclusion. The court, following the conclusions of the court-consultant, acknowledges (page 13) that" the cells with electrodes of treated palladium with heavy water solutions, undoubtedly [our italics] produce an unexplainable quantity of heat", and there is no mention of fraud or misconduct anywhere in the text. Unfortunately, it is on the widespread innuendo, defamation and vituperation that have characterized the response in scientific circles that the court bases the right of the journalist to report such defamations as" the voice of the scientific communtity" with no regard to the honour of dedicated and honest individuals. On page 13, the Italian text reads:" One must thus reckon that the severe critiques [a clear understatement!] of the promoters of cold fusion in the articles of Pace Giovanni Maria are justified by the existence of a strong opposition in the scientific community not only to the theoretical bases of the research but also to the way in which experiments were conducted, the data were published and the conclusions on the prospects of the research programme were drawn." One might compare such a verdict with the hypothetical verdict of a German court in the 1930s dismissing the libel case of a Jewish group against a journalist of the Volkischer Beobachter on the grounds that antisemitism was the prevalent attitude in Germany at the time. Traces of such a doubtful ethics can be found in several leading articles in Nature about the" cold fusion affair". In particular we have in mind the question at the end of David Lindley's Commentary article (Nature 344, 375-376; 1990):" Would a measure of unrestrained mockery, even a little unqualified vituperation, have speeded cold fusion's demise?" The problem with the enemies of cold fusion, the True Unbelievers, is that they are a bit lazy. Even Lindley acknowledges that"[a] lthough cold fusion was [note the past tense even in the spring of 1990!], in terms of'ordinary'physics, absurd, it was not obviously so; it contravened no fundamental laws of physics", but the leaders of the scientific community don't want to do their homework and prove their point (either experimentally or theoretically). They simply dismiss everything that supports this new scientific development and, when cornered by fact and logic, they
