280) Another rejection


Ludwik Kowalski; 2/17/2006
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043

lllustrations of rejections of cold fusion papers and notes by editors of mainstream journals can be found in items #33, #88 and #233. Below is another illustration. In typing this new item I am thinking about the Soviet Union where research in genetics was considered to be pseudoscientific. Enormous administrative pressures were created to make sure that minds of people are not poisoned by degenerated Ph.D. scientists and academicians. The system was very effective.

The editors of our mainstream papers are certainly not subjected to the same kind of ideological pressure. But, somehow, they also act in unison when it come to rejections of information about research in the “forbidden” CMNS field. The CMNS, by the way, stands for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, a better (but not perfect) name for what used to be called “cold fusion.” What is the mechanism behind the unison action of editors and other administrators of “mainstream science?” They seem to follow some kind of a “party line.” And this happens in many countries.

The social phenomena of organized discrimination of large groups of highly qualified researchers are probably worth studying. I do understand the mechanism of discrimination of geneticists in the Soviet Union but the mechanism of discrimination in the USA is not at all clear to me. Something is not right somewhere. What is it? The text below was e-mailed to the editor of a magazine on January 29, 2006.

To: Yale Scientific Magazine
P.O. Box 209117, Yale Station
New Haven, CT 06520
ysm@yale.edu

From: Ludwik Kowalski
341 Brook Avenue
Passaic, NJ 07055

Date: January 29, 2006

Dear editor: Please consider the following note for inclusion in your magazine.

Still proto-science -- but not pseudo-science.
And not a fraud.

By Ludwik Kowalski

About 40 years ago, as a postdoctoral researcher at Columbia University, I often participated in nuclear science experiments at Yale University. In 1968 my note entitled "The Use of Mica in Understanding Nuclear Reactions" was published in Yale Scientific. I am now a retired professor emeritus, Montclair State University, NJ. The purpose of writing this short note is to make the readers aware of how I reacted to a Washington Post article by a Yale University historian, Dr. Bettyann Kevles. Although I found the article interesting I strongly disagree with what she wrote about “cold fusion” (CF), as explained at:

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/254fraud.html

Like most scientists of my generation, I was highly excited when the CF discovery was announced 17 years ago. And like most of them, I accepted the “official” Department of Energy position that CF is pseudo-science. But about four years ago I accidentally discovered that the field is still active. I started reading recent publications <www.lenr-canr.org>, participated in four CF experiments and attended three International CF conferences (ICCF10, ICCF11 and ICCF12). The evolution of my ideas about CF can be seen at the above website. I am optimistic that something good will emerge out of CF research. Unfortunately, instead of being encouraged and rewarded, honest researchers in the area of CF are often viewed as pseudo scientists. Dr. Kevles even compared the announcement of CF with the well-known fraudulent “Piltdown Man” episode.

Be aware of these facts, remain open-minded and protect honest scientists, even those who explore controversial claims. Researchers should be protected from those who discriminate against them, by denying access to peer reviewed journals, etc., and from fraudulent commercial manipulators. In my opinion CF will become science when at least one of its effects is “officially” recognized as truly reproducible. My personal attempts to contribute to such a transformation are described in items #267 and #270, at the above website. For the time being let good people benefit from your doubt.

This note was submitted about three weeks ago. Today, assuming that my message was lost, or forgotten, I resubmitted it. I wrote: “Dear editor: I am sending the attached file again. It was first e-mailed on 1/29/2006 but I did not hear from you. Assuming my message was lost I am sending the file again. Please confirm that the file was received. I want to know if my note is going to be published. Ludwik Kowalski Professor Emeritus, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, 07055”

Will the editor reply or will this professor emeritus be ignored again? This question will be answered here in about ten days, if you come back. Please describe your experience in dealing with administrators of mainstream science, editors, government officials, laboratory directors, fund granting agencies, etc. I will be happy to “advertise” your stories here. What can be done to eliminate a vicious circle: The claimed CMNS discoveries are criticized on the basis of not being confirmed by other scientists while, at the same time, other scientists are prevented from seeing CMNS papers.

To be appended; probaly in about ten days:
. . . . . . . . . .
No reply so far, 3/29/06