.
Teaching and Learning Resource (TLR)
1. Title
The Cold Fusion Story
2. Keywords
Cold fusion; contested science; scientific objectivity; stakeholders.
3. Introduction
According to Grayson (1995: 1), in the conventional view, scientific investigation is seen as the rational pursuit of objective truth which can be uncovered or explained through the development and testing of hypotheses using proven experimental techniques. Scientists are assumed to hold a set of moral values including an overriding commitment to truth in the face of pressures which might be exerted by financial inducements, the desire for professional advancement and other factors.
This view has been called into question on theoretical grounds - especially by philosophers and sociologists who question the very possibility of objective truth - and on empirical grounds - by academics, journalists and others reporting cases of scientific deception, fraud and misconduct. Nevertheless, it would appear that the conventional view is still quite widespread; and not least amongst students, who may regard cases of scientific uncertainty or contestation as problems that can be readily resolved by further research, and cases of scientific deception etc as isolated instances of science gone wrong.
4. Aim
The aim of this TLR is to provide students with an opportunity to think critically about the conventional view of scientific investigation. It does so by means of a case study of scientific controversy, the cold fusion story, and by inviting them to compare and contrast the cold fusion story with scientific controversies in the environmental field.
5. Learning outcomes
After using this TLR, students should:
6. Pre-requisites
This TLR requires students to have some knowledge of the social context within which scientific investigations are undertaken and, in particular, to have at least a general knowledge of several scientific controversies in the environmental field.
7. How to use TLR
The TLR has been designed to be used broadly as follows. (Timings are based on a class size of about 20 students. Smaller and larger class sizes could be accommodated by varying the number/size of groups and/or time allocations).
Stage 1
This stage would require 20-30 mins of class time (allowing time for questions), and further time for private study.
Stage 2
This stage would require 90-120 mins of class time, assuming that each group was allocated about 6-7 mins for reporting back and answering questions based on their analyses.
8. Instructions to students
As directed by tutor.
9. Stimulus Material
The stimulus material for this TLR consists of a Briefing Sheet (attached), entitled The Cold Fusion Story.
10. Degree stage
This TLR could be used at levels one, two or three, provided that (i) the pre-requisites were met (see Section 6) and (ii) expectations of the students were adjusted accordingly.
11. Resource requirements
None.
12. Preparation
See Section 7 (How to use the TLR).
13. Links with other TLRs
The aims and/or learning outcomes of this TLR are related to those of other TLRs listed in the following 'thematic clusters':
14. Follow-up activities
None.
15. Recommended reading
16. Users' comments
“Raises the issues surrounding the way science is practised in a simple and straightforward manner.”
“Uses a controversial area of scientific research to highlight the influences on scientists and the personalities that can be involved in science.”
“Exercise is useful for an initial ‘opening up’ of the issues but could be used for a more in depth analysis too.”
Briefing Sheet: The Story of Cold Fusion
Introduction
According to Grayson (1995: 1), "in the conventional view, scientific investigation is seen as the rational pursuit of objective truth which can be uncovered or explained through the development and testing of hypotheses using proven experimental techniques. Scientists are assumed to hold a set of moral values including an overriding commitment to truth in the face of pressures which might be exerted by financial inducements, the desire for professional advancement and other factors."
This view has been called into question on theoretical grounds - especially by philosophers and sociologists who question the very possibility of 'objective truth' - and on empirical grounds - by academics, journalists and others reporting cases of scientific deception, fraud and misconduct. Nevertheless, it would appear that the conventional view is still quite widespread; and not least amongst students, who may regard cases of scientific uncertainty or contestation as 'problems' that can be readily resolved by further research, and cases of scientific deception etc as isolated instances of science 'gone wrong'.
Aim
The aim of this TLR is to provide students with an opportunity to think critically about the 'conventional view' of scientific investigation. It does so by means of a case study of scientific controversy, the 'cold fusion story', and by inviting them to compare and contrast the cold fusion story with scientific controversies in the environmental field.
Learning outcomes
After using this TLR, students should:
A Brief Account of The Cold Fusion Story
The following is derived from Collins and Pinch (1994: pp 57-79).
Nuclear fusion is often thought to be the ultimate, unlimited form of energy. To produce it, deuterium (a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen) is used as fuel in fusion plants which duplicate reactions occurring within the sun, at a temperature of millions of degrees. For nearly forty years, high-temperature experiments have been carried out in experimental plants to bring about nuclear fusion, with the ultimate aim of producing cheap and abundant energy. These experiments have cost millions of pounds, and by the late 1980s, governments throughout the world were cutting the funding offered to such work, since it did not appear to be producing successful results.
Alongside these high-temperature, high-cost experiments, several small groups of scientists were working on a different way of producing nuclear fusion altogether. One such group was headed by Fleischmann and Pons. Fleischmann was a British electrochemist, forced to take early retirement from Southampton University during cuts to university funding in the Thatcher years. He became a freelance researcher, and took a post at the University of Utah, working with Pons, one of his former PhD students. Funding experiments with $100,000 of their own money, Fleischmann and Pons were investigating their theory that reactions with palladium in heavy water could produce nuclear fusion. This was not a new idea; chemists as long ago as the 1920s had carried out similar experiments in attempts to produce the helium which would result from such an experiment. More recently another group of scientists at Brigham Young University (also in Utah) had been experimenting in a similar way, although until 1988 they were unaware of Fleischmann and Pons work.
By 1989, after much adjustment and fine-tuning of their equipment, Fleischmann and Pons observed results which seemed to suggest that fusion was occurring: excess heat, free neutrons and the presence of tritium. The group at Brigham Young University had also observed unexpected neutrons, but not tritium or excess heat, a result which need not have suggested atomic fusion. Nonetheless, the Brigham Young group were about to publish their results and released an abstract publicly about their work. This jolted Fleischmann and Pons into action. Fearing that the Brigham Young group would usurp their ideas, they wrote a joint submission to the journal Nature, claiming that they had achieved cold fusion - a paper which was leaked to the Financial Times. A press release followed, before the full scientific paper was published.
Because of the energy generating potential of nuclear fusion, this generated a huge controversy. The idea of energy too cheap to meter (once said about traditional nuclear power) was raised; and the effects (in particular the environmental effects) of switching to energy sources based on nuclear fusion rather than fossil fuels were widely discussed. But within the scientific world, there was much scepticism. Most nuclear physicists argued that cold fusion was impossible in principle, or that if it were possible it would be too slow to produce observable results - or that Fleischmann and Pons should be dead from radiation sickness! A few physicists did attempt to speculate as to how such results might be possible - but such speculations were unpopular in physics departments, and the tenured position of at least one physicist was jeopardised by his persistence in such speculation. Fleischmann and Pons work was generally rejected by physicists as being the result either of faulty observations or equipment; or of being explained by a chemical rather than a nuclear reaction.
Amongst chemists, the reaction was more mixed. The Brigham Young group were furious that Fleischmann and Pons had gone public. In part this was because their own, more modest results were overshadowed; but also because the strength of reaction against Fleischmann and Pons results from nuclear physicists was extended to include their own. Other groups of electrochemists, however, were keen to begin their own experiments to test Fleischmann and Pons results, to see whether they were repeatable or whether further tests would show that Fleischmann and Pons claims could not be substantiated. The experiment was (in theory at least) easy to conduct and relatively cheap, and was repeated by chemists across the world.
Initially, several universities reported positive results - enough for the US Government to consider switching its fusion research funding from traditional high-temperature nuclear fusion projects to cold fusion research. However as weeks passed more and more research groups - most importantly an influential group at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - could detect none of the results (neutrons, tritium and excess heat) which would indicate that nuclear fusion was happening. Various accusations were made about errors in Fleischmann and Pons methodology and equipment; the New Scientist in 1990 even suggested that fraud was involved in the reported results of some experiments which claimed to replicate Fleischmann and Pons success. Fleischmann and Pons withdrew their paper from Nature and a substantially revised form did not appear until July 1990.
By July the furore over cold fusion had died down and the idea was widely thought to have been discredited along with those who had proposed it. The careers of Fleischmann and Pons were permanently blighted. It was widely believed that the scientists involved claimed too much, based it on too little, and publicised it too widely. Those few scientists who continued to work on the question played down their relationship to the controversy and its possible implication for other scientists by publishing papers with titles like Anomalous phenomena in the Palladium-Deuterium lattice. Currently, some experiments are still being carried out in this area, but even though some positive results have been reported, little funding is available for cold fusion research.
Study Questions
1.To what extent does the cold fusion story - as portrayed here - correspond with Graysons (1995: 1) description of the conventional view of scientific investigation as the rational pursuit of objective truth which can be uncovered or explained through the development and testing of hypotheses using proven experimental techniques?
2.Grayson goes on to say: Scientists are assumed to hold a set of moral values including an overriding commitment to truth in the face of pressures which might be exerted by financial inducements, the desire for professional advancement and other factors. What pressures do you think might have been at play in the cold fusion story? To what extent do you think each of these influenced the development and outcome of the cold fusion story? (In answering this question, you might find it helpful to think about the range of different stakeholders involved the cold fusion story, and consider the influence of their vested interests.)
By the early 1990s, the idea of cold fusion had been discredited. If that were the end of the story, it would be easy to dismiss cold fusion as a case of mistaken science put right by the various checking processes to which scientific discoveries are subjected. However, Mallove (1991) has argued that the scientific community was too hasty to condemn cold fusion - and there are still many people, including scientists, who believe that cold fusion can take place and may prove to be a viable energy source. (Goodstein, 1994; Platt, 1998) What implications does this have for your answer to Questions 1 and 2?
Think of some scientific controversies in the environmental field, and compare them with the cold fusion story. What do such cases suggest about (a) the range of possible influences on scientific work, (b) the circumstances under which these different kinds of influence are likely to be significant and (c) the credibility of science-based policy making in the environmental field?
References and Further reading
Close, F (1992) Too Hot to Handle. The Race for Cold Fusion (London: Penguin) [Provides a detailed account of the cold fusion story up to 1990 - with an epilogue written in August 1991. Written by a leading scientist for a popular audience. Concludes (writing in August 1990) that There comes a point where one has to accept the message of the data - that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. (p349)]
Collins, H and Pinch, T (1994) The Golem. What Everyone should know about Science (Canto)
Fox, F (1997) The Legacy of Cold Fusion. Truth, History and Status. [Online] Available at: http://www.padrak.com/~ine/NEN_5_5_8.html (Accessed May 1999.) [Short, strongly pro-cold fusion article. Claims that the discrediting of cold fusion research was the product of a conspiracy involving the US Government and scientists working on hot fusion research.]
Goodstein, D (1994) Whatever happened to Cold Fusion? [Online] Available at: http://www.caltech.edu:80/~goodstein/fusion.html (Accessed May 1999.) [Provides an evaluation of cold fusion research up to 1994. Signals a degree of impartiality - or double partiality! - by disclosure friendship with, and respect for, both pro- and anti-cold fusion researchers. Concludes that cold fusion does not occur.]
Grayson, L (1995) Scientific Deception. An Overview and Guide to the Literature of Misconduct and Fraud in Scientific Research (London: The British Library) [Provides an excellent introduction to the subject and associated literature. Particularly strong on case-based analyses but largely avoids literature in the philosophy and sociology of knowledge / science.]
Huizenga, JR (1993) Cold Fusion. The Scientific Fiasco of the Century. Revised Edition (Rochester, NJ: University of Rochester Press)
Mallove, EF (1991) Fire from Ice. Searching for the Truth beyond the Cold Fusion Furore (New York: Wiley)
Platt, C (1998) What if Cold Fusion is Real? [Online] Available at: http://www.wired.com/wired.archive/6.11/coldfusion.html (Accessed May 1999.) [Gives an up-to-date and non-technical account of the cold fusion story. Focuses on current research by pro-cold fusion scientists, and presents their work in a sympathetic light without being overtly pro-cold fusion itself. Does not give voice to the critics of recent cold fusion research.]
Taubes, G (1993) Bad Science. The Short Life and Hard Times of Cold Fusion (New York: Random House)
The electronic journal, Cold Fusion Times, which is openly pro-cold fusion and provides links to other pro-cold fusion websites, can be accessed at: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html