Re: enough already with the CF/Wrights stuff?

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, William Beaty wrote:

> If PHYS-L prefers, I shall shut up about the Wright Brothers, CF, etc.
> If nobody says anything, I'll take that as a vote against the CF/Wrights
> discussion.

I cannot resist offering a parting shot, especially to those who keep
stereotyping all cold fusion supporters as being "conspiracy theorists."

Obviously I've been making PHYS-L my personal soapbox, so in this case
I'll surrender the floor (box?) to Dr. Brian Martin...


              Published in Newsweek, 26 April 1993, pp. 49-50.

                            STAMPING OUT DISSENT

           Too often, unconventional or unpopular scientific views
                            are simply suppressed

                              By Brian Martin

   Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which
   progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many
   scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience
   that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous -- especially
   when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it
   suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone
   does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful
   interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body.
   As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas
   or the critic personally--by censoring writing, blocking publications,
   denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants,
   taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors.

   Dr. Melvin Reuber worked at the Frederick Cancer Research Facility in
   Maryland studying links between pesticides and cancer. A highly
   productive scientist, he says he regularly earned glowing performance
   reports. In 1981 he received a scathing report. The bulk of it found
   its way into Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, a trade magazine for the
   petrochemical industry. The item was circulated around the world and
   used to discredit Reuber wherever his findings were cited to question
   the safety of pesticides.

   The expression of dissenting views may not seem like much of a threat
   to a powerful organization, yet sometimes it triggers an amazingly
   hostile response. The reason is that a single dissenter can puncture
   an illusion of unanimity. Perhaps nowhere is the facade of unanimity
   stronger than in the debate over fluoridating public drinking water to
   prevent dental caries. Proponents of the practice roundly deny that
   there is any debate, much less reason for one, at all.

   Dr. John Colquhoun, a New Zealand dentist and dental administrator,
   had long supported fluoridation. But in 1980 he took a world trip to
   study the issue and subsequently changed his mind. After he was quoted
   in a newspaper warning parents not to let their young children swallow
   too much fluoridated toothpaste, Colquhoun received a letter from the
   New Zealand Health Department. It said that if he could not adhere to
   official policy recommending the use of fluoride toothpaste by young
   children, one option was to resign. No further action was taken
   against him.

   Those who launch the attacks explain everything from censorship to
   dismissal on the ground of poor performance by the person concerned.
   No one admits to suppressing dissent. And indeed, there is no way to
   be absolutely sure that suppression has occurred. But there are some
   good indicators. One is the double-standard test: is similar treatment
   given to other scientists who have similar levels of performance? In
   typical suppression cases, other scientists with equal or lesser
   records are not attacked. They didn't rock the boat.

   But dramatic cases of transfers and dismissals give a misleading
   impression of patterns of suppression. The most common tactics are
   probably to block publications or appointments. These are incredibly
   difficult to document.

   How frequent is suppression? No one has done a systematic survey. But
   having studied this issue for the past decade and a half, it is my
   experience that the problem is much more pervasive than most people
   realize. There's a sustained pattern of suppression in some areas,
   such as nuclear power, fluoridation, pesticides and forestry.

   Dr. Hugh DeWitt is a theoretical physicist at Lawrence Livermore
   National Laboratory, a nuclear-weapons lab. DeWitt has long been a
   critic of aspects of U.S. nuclear weapons policy. In 1979 he filed
   affidavits in support of The Progressive, a magazine about to publish
   information on the workings of the hydrogen bomb -- obtained from
   public sources like encyclopedias -- when the federal government
   sought an injunction. The lab placed a letter of warning in DeWitt's
   personnel file. After scientific organizations came to his defense, De
   Witt reached a settlement with the lab, and in 1980 the letter was
   removed from his file...

<big snip>

The lessons for the CF controversy are obvious.  Maybe the CF researchers
need some "whistleblower protection," and should take legal action against
opponents who used demonstrably illegal tactics to silence their voices?
Now THAT would be an interesting court case to watch!  For example, what
would happen when the public learns that the US patent office instituted a
policy of rejecting all patents for "cold fusion" devices?

For the rest of the above article, see:

 STAMPING OUT DISSENT
 http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/Martin_93nw.html
 http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                                  http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L