By Steven B. Krivit

In a press conference on March 23, 1989, two chemists, Dr. Martin Fleischmann and Dr. Stanley Pons at the University of Utah made three claims. The most significant of these claims was the discovery of a method of generating energy from a nuclear source in the form of heat in a way that was previously unrecognized by nuclear physicists.

Martin Fleischmann Photo: Hywell Rees

B. Stanley Pons Photo: Steven Krivit

In Fleischmann and Pons' experiment using the elements palladium (a precious metal) and deuterium (a form of hydrogen), they observed 1,000 times more heat coming from the reaction than could be explained by any known chemical reaction. [Click here for their paper.] This discovery, which yielded excess heat, became popularly identified as cold fusion.

Their discovery not only appeared to contradict prevailing theory but also generated more energy, watt for watt, than the hot fusion physicists had made in their attempts over the previous 38 years.

The magnitude of the surprise, disbelief and anger of many nuclear physicists cannot be overestimated. The claim of excess heat without dangerous radiation at room temperature was startling. Within one month of the announcement, IBM physicist Richard Garwin said, "Large heat release from fusion at room temperature would be a multidimensional revolution. I bet against its confirmation." Whenever this controversy is finally settled, it is possible that scientists may agree that some other novel nuclear mechanism, but not fusion, is responsible for the phenomena. The bet in 1989, and for much of the early cold fusion history, was that all of the Fleischmann-Pons claims were entirely without substance and that the new source of energy was a mistake, "pathological science" and a delusion.

Richard Garwin

The two chemists and their discovery of the cold fusion effect posed an uncomfortable challenge to fundamental concepts held by nuclear physicists.

"If professor X.Z. Li [Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, who has studied both hot and cold fusion research] is correct," Roth said, "then I'll have to throw away about 14 of the 16 chapters in my book Introduction to Fusion, because it will no longer be relevant to the kinds of fusion that could result from this 'cold fusion' process." The discoverers, while confident about the core of their discovery, excess heat, were unable to explain other aspects of their experiment. Fleischmann and Pons also made a significant error with their neutron/gamma measurements that caused confusion and aroused suspicion. Fleischmann and Pons made other mistakes too; they exaggerated their claims by making an extrapolation with their data and breached several professional protocols. However, they did not make significant errors with regard to their discovery of excess heat, which has been validated many times.

Xing Zhong Li

To the nuclear scientists of the day, the claims of Fleischmann and Pons were just too much: too many miracles and too many contradictions. It looked like nonsense, and it was far easier to dismiss it than to consider it seriously.

Although none has admitted it, outspoken nuclear physicists didn't seem to like the idea of two chemists trumping them, and they didn't like the idea that two chemists claimed to have found a way to generate nuclear energy with laboratory equipment far simpler and less expensive than their own.

Nathan Lewis Photo: Amy Tierney	The initial rejection and much of the continuing debate have been highly emotional reactions to the intellectual challenge presented by the cold fusion claims. Initially, several laboratories asserted that they had debunked the cold fusion claims. Researchers at Caltech and MIT led the charge. David Goodstein, California Institute of Technology vice provost and professor of physics, wrote that his colleagues Steven Koonin and Nathan Lewis "executed between them a perfect slam-dunk that cast cold fusion right out of the arena of mainstream science." MIT professors Ronald R. Parker and Ronald G. Ballinger gave an interview to the Boston Herald and alleged that Fleischmann and Pons had committed science fraud. After the defamatory story hit the newswires, Parker denied making such accusations. An audiotape of this interview, however, supports the Herald and its journalist Nick Tate. [Recording: Side one 10Mb, Side two, 5Mb]	Ronald G. Ballinger
Steven Koonin Photo: Steven Krivit		Ronald R. Parker

It was a tall order to expect scientists to figure out the cold fusion phenomenon in a matter of weeks. Because of the lack of information available, it is unlikely that researchers at Caltech and MIT were able to create the proper experimental conditions to initiate and measure the cold fusion effect. However, there is one instance at each laboratory where the data may indicate a very small positive result. In both cases, evidence shows that researchers at Caltech and MIT shifted their data to eliminate any possibility of the appearance of a positive effect.

The resistance to the idea of cold fusion led to a turf war between many chemists and physicists. The two disciplines use different tools for observation and for measurement. They also have different protocols for the assessment and acceptance of empirical findings.

"Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary." - Dr. Norman Ramsey, Nobel laureate and professor of physics at Harvard University was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble as an alternative to his resignation from the panel.

Some physicists considered the use of the term "fusion" by Fleischmann and Pons illegitimate, even sacrilegious, because the evidence conflicted with their conventional understanding of fusion. They considered use of the word to be disrespectful to science.

Adding fuel to the fusion controversy was the fact that billions of dollars of research funds earmarked for physicists were at risk. This may have been another reason why many physicists were reluctant to accept the chemists' evidence.

One of the most common and invalid critiques used to reject the excess heat claim was "the absence of a convincing theoretical argument," as Mark Mac Low, an astrophysicist with the American Museum of Natural History, wrote in 2006. This criticism reflects a departure from the scientific method.

A scientific observation, at its beginning, does not require a working theory. In simple terms, this objection puts the cart before the horse. The foundation of scientific exploration is experiment, not theory. In other words, "theories guide, experiments decide."

Another common argument, also presented by both Mac Low and Garwin, is the suggestion that the claims of cold fusion are the result of measurement error or poor experimental design. [Click here for an analysis of these arguments by Edmund Storms.]

Critics, including Garwin, who visited the SRI International laboratory in Menlo Park, Calif., and the Laboratoire des Sciences Nuclearies in Paris, which was funded in part by Shell Petroleum, failed to find the errors that they allege would account for the many years of laboratory results supporting the claim of excess heat. They have, at times, found errors but none that was significant enough to refute the claims.

Those who still reject the field in its entirety are often well-intentioned, however un- or misinformed scientists, who believe they are protecting the public from false science.

In 2004, Garwin cautioned one journalist that endorsing cold fusion could "break the bank on supporting bad science, and even worse, pollute our political and scientific process by false arguments that the money is being well spent and progress is being made."

In the same letter, Garwin broadly attributed the claims of cold fusion researchers to "self-delusion."

Naturally, the burden of proof for any extraordinary claim is on the claimant, and skeptics are not required to accept a claim until shown extraordinary evidence that they deem satisfactory. "Proof," however, is a personal, subjective criterion; it varies from one person to another and consequently cannot provide an effective universal benchmark, particularly in controversial science. Skeptics also have a responsibility. If they wish to assert the claim of procedural or experimental error, they have an obligation to identify the error explicitly. Vague, general assertions are meaningless and unsupportable -- and fall under the category of pathological skepticism. Worse, the broad allegation that all cold fusion researchers are suffering from self-delusion is arrogant and prejudicial, if not dishonorable. At some point, this scientific episode will provide deep insights into the nature of many scientists and their reactions to new paradigms.

Most scientists who attempted to replicate the Fleischmann-Pons experiment initially failed. However, a few succeeded – some by luck, others because of prior related electrochemistry experience. Those who succeeded shared three common factors.

First, they considered the Fleischmann-Pons claim seriously rather than responding with ridicule. Second, they assumed the experiment was not at all as simple as reported by the press. Third, they were patient, allowing many months to learn about, test and implement their replications.

Most of the arguments against the claim of excess heat, including one that calls it “pathological science” and another demanding 100 percent repeatability, have been little more than a smokescreen by scientists who were simply astounded by the novelty of low energy nuclear reactions, the scientific term for the cold fusion phenomena.

Most physicists see science like mathematics: formulaic and predictable. [Click here for an analysis of proof and the scientific method by Charles Beaudette.] They expect and demand that valid experiments be highly repeatable by their originators and reproducible by their peers.

Many nuclear physicists have demanded 100 percent repeatability before being willing to take the cold fusion field seriously. This demand, and the underlying motive, are suspect. Some scientific disciplines -- geology and astrophysics, for example -- do not demand 100 percent repeatability.

Sharon Begley of The Wall Street Journal was one of the first journalists to recognize the larger problem.

"The only thing pathological about cold fusion," Begley said, "is the way the scientific establishment has treated it."

According to the strict protocols of science -- "the rules," as some scientists call them -- the validation of the excess heat effect by Fleischmann and Pons at the University of Utah has followed scientific protocol. [Click here for Storms' "Objective Assessment" paper.] The experiments have been performed with rigor, good signal-to-noise ratios, and controls. Independent researchers have replicated them, using a variety of methods and publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

The excess heat effect cannot be repeated and reproduced on demand by more than a handful of researchers. However, the general reasons for this are well-understood. Although some people choose to see the reproducibility challenge as a glass half empty -- and use this as justification to dismiss the entire field -- other people see a glass half full, the possibility of a major new field of science and technology.

Despite acrimonious comments by would-be critics in popular media, the majority of scientific papers supporting low energy nuclear reactions and published in peer-reviewed journals have never been challenged, let alone refuted. This includes the seminal Fleischmann-Pons paper from 1990 and the first published replication by Richard Oriani, also in 1990.

Technically, the subject matter is complex. It is not at all a routine science problem to solve or understand. Neither were the discoveries of radioactivity and semiconductors.

The attempt to refute the Fleischmann-Pons claims in the span of six weeks was, in retrospect, ludicrous, particularly for a multi-disciplinary subject like the low energy nuclear reactions in condensed matter.

When new science with broad potential impact is discovered, a true community of experts from various fields must come together to reach an honest and accurate judgment of the discovery on behalf of society. This process takes time and patience, and that was sorely lacking in the cold fusion episode. We can only hope that this historic temporary failure of the scientific method will serve as a lesson reminding us to handle tomorrow's controversial science discoveries more wisely.

"We do not know if cold fusion will be the answer to future energy needs, but we do know the existence of the cold fusion phenomenon through repeated observations by scientists throughout the world. It is time that this phenomenon be investigated so that we can reap whatever benefits accrue from additional scientific understanding." -- Dr. Frank E. Gordon, head of the Navigation and Applied Sciences Department of the Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego