After reading Pinch’s excerpt “Cold Fusion and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge” (1998), I was curious to see how Pons and Fleischmann’s discovery was portrayed to the public. I figured the most straight-forward method would be to find a video of the 1989 press conference on cold fusion held at the University of Utah on March 23. Below you’ll find a link to a YouTube video of the aforementioned press conference. This blog will follow along the video pointing out key points at specific times, so my recommendation would be to load the video while reading the first portion of this blog.
First and foremost, I believe that this press conference outlines the course concept that science is a social enterprise to the tee. Many different individuals were brought into the discussion of cold fusion and their reputations and futures were held hostage during this scientific controversy. Knowing how this series of events turned out, we can say that the reputations of these individuals changed considerably, and most not for the better.
Prior to the release of his cold fusion studies, Fleischmann was known as “one of Britain’s most distinguished electrochemists” to have made “a number of important discoveries, as recognized by his election as a Fellow of the Royal Society” (Pinch, 1998, pg. 77). Pons was also considered “a productive scientist in his own right and chair of the University of Utah chemistry department” (Pinch, 1998, pg. 75). Each of these researches brings various organizations into the fire with them simply by association. Even the Royal Society would feel a small sting knowing that one of its members practices were called into question.
Just as we saw in the “ulcer bug” case study, many people’s credibility will be called into question during the course of this scientific controversy due to the fact that science does not take place in a vacuum and findings are subject to intense critique from all parties.
The second course concept I would like to discuss throughout this press conference is the concept of framing. To be honest, I thought there would be more platforms on which I expected to hear the scientists specifically sell the idea cold fusion. However, it was noticeable when Jim Brophy, the Vice President of research at the University of Utah, and Dr. Chase Peterson, President of the University of Utah, spoke on subject.
Cold fusion could be the way to solve the globe’s energy concerns as well as lower our CO2 emissions and decrease the greenhouse effect, decrease the amount of acid rain by burning less sulfurous coal. Throughout the press conference both Mr. Brohpy and Dr. Peterson grossly extrapolate possible benefits of cold fusion without using any statistical data or backing, selling cold fusion as the “promise of virtually unlimited energy”.
Now onto the video!
If you’ll first stop at 4:20, Dr. Peterson does state some of the qualities of the National Academy of Science that we were just speaking of in class. This gives the hearing an air of legitimacy, seemingly noting that they expect to be poked and prodded for details for replication experiments.
At 6:10 Pons first takes the floor to give a very basic overview of the apparatus and procedure. He then dives into the large picture effect of their findings: “considerable release of energy and we’ve demonstrated that it can be sustained on its own, in other words much more energy is coming out than we’re putting in”.
Fleischmann then takes over at 7:35 and pushes the claim even further to say that “fusion takes place and can be sustained indefinitely”. Fleischmann does give a quick definition of his use of indefinitely, but overall these are very powerful statements on cold fusion that the press immediately jump on for “how does this affect the population?” types of questions compared to skeptical “are you sure you’ve got it right?” types of questions. The benefits of the findings are being framed as the large part of this discussion rather than the science itself.
At 10:55 the press asks questions about fusion applications to which Pons responds that he thinks “it would be reasonable within a short number of years to build a fully operational device that could produce electric power to drive a steam generator or turbine”. Pons and Fleischmann’s research was focused on the event of cold fusion itself, like he says, and I would argue that it is outside of their realms as electrochemists to make claims like this one.
At 13:25 Fleischmann tries to rescind and modify some of the slightly outlandish claims by others. He tries to reel the subject back into the discussion of their study, on the specific science of cold fusion, rather than the perceived benefits. He again mentions the gauntlet of skepticism and trial that all scientific findings must run through before really laying down claims to long-term benefits.
However, at 15:55 Mr. Brophy is back to framing cold fusion as the ideal energy source because it will result in the “elimination of acid rain, reduces the green house effect, and allows us to use fossil fuels in a way which is much more important”.
At 24:25 the President of the University takes the floor and mentions concern about the universities ownership although not mentioning other recent findings, such as Jones’ at BYU which we’ve heard of through Pinch’s excerpt. Dr. Peterson also pulls out a letter from the Governor of Utah that states his full support of Utah’s cold fusion research to which he is “ready to offer the resources of the state at [the governor’s] disposal”. Yet another party, and another stakeholder, being pulled into the discussion.
My question on how was this event presented to the public was well answered by finding this video of the press conference. Although I was surprised that more blatant framing wasn’t used, this topic continues to interest me in seeing what happened next. Who was the first to lay claim that their replication experiments worked? What were their practices or motives? And were they directly connected to any of the individuals in this press conference? Then on the flip side, who were the first to speak out against Pons and Fleischmann’s findings? And how were they connected?
There were many societal implications of these findings, as was said many times by Mr. Brophy and Dr. Peterson. And there were also implications throughout this event as a large-scale scientific controversy. I can imagine research funding was rapidly reallocated towards this subject from other deserving topics, a university was embarrassed in the long-run by exaggerated and hastily-made claims to cold fusion. In the future, I’m sure many organizations will take careful consideration into whether they give their full support, backing, and funding to up-and-coming technologies and procedures.
Pinch, 1998, pgs. 75, 77.
New Energy Institute, 1989, video.
