ICCF-14, Washington, D.C., August 2008
Abstracts Submitted for Conference Presentation
Abstracts for two papers have been submitted to the ICCF-14 conference (click here for website). They are shown below. Neither paper has yet been accepted for presentation.
Paper # 1
Open Source Science Applied to CMNS
Research:
A Paradigm for Enhancing Cold Fusion
Prospects and the Public Interest
Thomas W. Grimshaw, Ph.D., Mid-Career Program
Open
Source Science (OSSc) is a collaborative, voluntary
(uncompensated) and highly distributed method of research that emphasizes the
power of new digital technologies, particularly the Internet. The OSSc paradigm grew out of the open source software movement
of the last 20 years, which has resulted in wide availability of free software
(such as the Linux operating system) as an alternative to proprietary software
products. In many respects, OSSc represents a return
to the concept that scientific research results are a public good rather than a
proprietary product – an attitude clearly articulated in the 1940s by Robert
Merton, the “father” of the sociology of science.
The
public interest in the success of cold fusion has long been tacitly accepted
because of the potential social welfare benefits related to its possibilities
for very low cost energy and even transmutation of chemical elements. Cold
fusion researchers, because of rejection of their field by mainstream science
and continued highly marginalized research conditions, already employ many of
the methods and tools of OSSc. For example, they not
only use websites for posting research papers and but also utilize Internet
discussion groups for introducing ideas and dialoguing online about the merits
and deficiencies of those ideas.
The
prospects of cold fusion success may be significantly enhanced by extending the
current informal and implicit use of OSSc-type
methods to more organized and explicit deployment under the sponsorship of a
recognized professional organization such as ISCMNS. A formal, sponsored use of
OSSc for support of cold fusion could not only
enhance current methods (not replace them) by bringing them under a
professional organization “umbrella”, but also bring powerful OSSc methods into play that are not currently used. For
example, research collaboration (especially by scientists in other fields) may
be enhanced by establishing an open website dedicated to this purpose,
including posting of research data (in addition to papers and interpreted information)
by registered users. Another example would be a “wiki-like”
website that would not only increase the availability and quality of cold
fusion information, but also improve its accessibility to the public and policy
makers, thus helping to “make the case” for badly needed public policy changes
toward cold fusion. Fortunately, OSSc methods have
been applied in other fields (e.g., environmental datasets), so working
examples are well established and readily available.
The
collaborative and voluntary approach of OSSc may be
somewhat less powerful for highly technical and specialized fields (like the
nuclear physics underpinnings of cold fusion theory and research) than has been
the case for open source software, where the population of contributors is
vast. Nevertheless, the prospects for cold fusion success, and the associated
public interest in that success, would be significantly enhanced by expanded
and more disciplined application of OSSc methods by
the CMNS community.
Paper # 2
Public Interest Arguments for Cold
Fusion Policy Change:
Opportunities for the CMNS Research
Community
Thomas W. Grimshaw, Ph.D., Mid-Career Program
It
seems apparent that current public policy toward cold fusion in many countries,
including the U.S., is no longer – and
probably never has been – aligned with the public interest. Public policy
makers, particularly elected officials, almost universally claim the public
interest as the basis for policies that they develop or support. CMNS
researchers must therefore recognize that current negative policies toward cold
fusion can be reversed most effectively by making the case, and communicating
it effectively to policy makers, of the evidence for cold fusion. The public
interest will be well served by positive changes in cold fusion public policy.
CMNS
researchers may not currently emphasize public policy toward cold fusion for
two main reasons: 1) a greater interest, as scientists, in conducting experiments
and developing theories than in the social process of gaining public or
scientific acceptance; and 2) an implicit assumption that when sufficient
scientific evidence – and reproducibility – are established, then the reality of
cold fusion will “speak for itself”. It will then automatically gain acceptance
– and favorable policies. The first factor is perhaps addressed by gently
reminding researchers of something that they already know – it may be necessary
to do more than good research to gain support, including research funding, for
the investigations that they enjoy doing the most.
The
second factor is more problematic, because the implicit assumption embraces the
notion that public policy is generally rational rather than irrational – a natural
assumption for scientists trained for (and practicing in) an environment where
explanations of reality are grounded in rationality. Rational explanation of
observations is at the core of the scientific method – and has been since the Enlightenment.
Public policy that is based on rationality, on the other hand, is more the
exception than the rule. Instead, much of public policy is set by ideologies,
political factors, unspoken agendas and other non-rational drivers. The
continuing negative public policy toward cold fusion since its initial
rejection in 1989, despite the abundant and mounting evidence of its basis in
reality since then, is perhaps a case study in non-rational policy making.
A resurgence
has occurred in recent years for bringing rationality to the heart of policy
development (“what makes sense” or, especially, “what works”) in the form of evidence-based
policy making. This form of rational policy making has evolved out of
evidence-based medicine, which has been found to be extremely effective in
making decisions on best methods of medical practice. The central tenet of
evidence-based policymaking is that the public interest is best served by
what’s most rational and is best supported by the evidence.
Borrowing
from the legal field, rational arguments can readily be made for at least a
“preponderance of evidence” (greater than 50% probability) for the reality of
cold fusion. And a case can even reasonably be made for “clear and convincing
evidence” (probability over 70%) of its reality. Armed with such high levels of
evidence, and arguing for a framework of evidence-based (rational) policy
making, CMNS researchers can aggressively pursue changes in public policy
toward cold fusion based on what’s best for the public interest.
Last Update: 26 May 2008