Rate This
Article
[click here]

Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]

Lessons from Cold Fusion:
Beware of Science by Press Conference

The Event
The Problem
The Warning Signs
Other Examples
Does Peer Review guarantee accuracy?
Viewer Feedback

The Event:
In 1989, two chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced to the world via press conference that they had achieved cold fusion. Given that the equipment needed was just a a pair of electrodes connected to a battery and immersed in a jar of heavy water (dideuterium oxide), this had immense implications for the world energy crisis. The news made front pages on newspapers around the world.

The Problem:
After the announcement, other scientists were unable to reliably replicate their results. Pons and Fleischmann were reluctant to provide detailed information on their experiment. After much media exposure and an almost successful attempt to get $25,000,000 from the government to further their research, it was determined that the experiment didn't work.

The Warning Signs:
When scientists make revolutionary new discoveries, the normal route is to have others validate their work and then go public. If their work is solid, the results will be validated. When they circumvent this peer-review process and go directly to the public media (or science by press conference as it is sometimes called), warning bells should go off!

From The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science, by Robert L. Park

The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
The discoverer has worked in isolation.
The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

See also Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience by Quackwatch.

Other Examples of
Science by Press Conference to watch out for:

Two Important Threats to Your Children's Health - Aspartame and Dihydrogen Monoxide
Water-Powered Automobile - Reality or Hoax?
Archaeoraptor - The Piltdown Turkey - Fake fossils touted by "National Geographic"
Michael J. Behe - Creator of the term "Irreducible Complexity" with the bacterial motor as its example.
Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth - Video purporting to show "scientific evidence" that radioisotope dating doesn't work
Any "psychic" who prefers TV and tabloids instead of controlled lab experiments.

Does Peer Review guarantee accuracy?

No. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that the claimed procedures and methods follow proper scientific procedures. The peer reviewers don't normally perform the experiments and verify the claimed results. This simply isn't practical or reasonable. The reviewed article may represent years of research. The reviewers may not even have access to the data from which the paper has been written. This provides an opportunity for a scientist to fake data and lie about his results and still get them published. However, the lie is usually exposed pretty quickly when others attempt to repeat the experiments.

Other scientists verifying published data and results is the next step of the scientific process, and for obvious reasons, can only happen AFTER publication.

Knowing that someone is going to check your data and try to repeat your experiments is usually enough to convince most scientists that they shouldn't lie about their data. But, every so often someone gives it a try. They are usually exposed fairly quickly, but sometimes it can take years. See Fossil Hoaxes.

Unfortunately, there are unscrupulous people in every field. Fortunately, the scientific process has methods in place to help uncover them.

If peer review doesn't prevent fraud, what's the purpose? It's just one step in the scientific process. It helps to ensure that the methods used to make the claims are valid. The actually validity will be verified when others try to repeat the experiments.

Peer-review is only ONE step in the scientific process to ensure accuracy. Just, like adding the eggs in a cake recipe. Adding the eggs doesn't guarantee you'll get cake, but it's still a necessary step.

Peer review alone doesn't guarantee accuracy, but it's an important step in the process.

Why would someone fake data if they know they will get caught? Sometimes there's enough time between when the fake data is published and when it is found out to get investors in your experiment, sell a lot of books, etc. to make it worthwhile.