MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report - Infinite Energy Magazine

What was the nature of this aid? It was merely to fax a news
release (which they had prepared) and their technical paper to
a handful of media outlets; I also made a few phone calls, and
was contacted by people who had heard about the press conference,
including Park’s secretary. That’s how he was informed
to write his diatribes. My news judgement then and now was
that the seminar at MIT reflected well on the Institute; it showed
that we are at least nominally in the business of openly discussing
even controversial scientific matters. Also, by facilitating
news stories that reporters apparently found interesting
(such as William Broad of the New York Times), the News Office
maintained its deserved reputation as a useful information outlet.
I would make that same judgement again about any other
topic. Occasionally some interesting figure from outside MIT
arrives to make a controversial statement, e.g. scientist Dr.
James Lovelock (the Gaia hypothesis), and our office doesn’t
hesitate to “promote” them to the press.
As a result of these highly appropriate scientific events, these
are the “gifts” we received from Park. They came in two successive
weeks of his widely circulated
column, which is signed “Robert L.
Park, The American Physical Society,”
giving the impression that his is an
official Society view, even though it is
not. Not once did Park mention the
scientific seminar at MIT. He preferred
what he evidently considered to be
the pejorative “press conference.”
Here is the 1st message:
Dr. Robert L. Park “INCREDIBLE COINCIDENCE:
SIMULTANEOUS BOSTON PRESS CONFERENCE! At the
very instant that Mills was revealing his startling new findings
in Lancaster, two-well known physicists, Fred Mayer
and John Reitz, were in Boston announcing their new cold
fusion theory, with the help of the MIT press office. Their
paper, which will also be published by Fusion Technology,
involves—are you ready?—tiny hydrogen atoms! Except they
call them ‘hydrons’ and attribute them to ‘continuum bound
state resonances.’ Mayer expects prototype power generating
systems in about five years. Neither Mayer or Reitz is associated
in any way with MIT. How then did the MIT press office
get involved? Very good question?”
(April 26, 1991)
Professor Ronald R. Parker of the
PFC chose not to bring this piece of
slander and omission directly to my
attention. Evidently he agreed with its
tenor and was stirred up about the
Mayer-Reitz press conference. Instead,
he faxed a copy of it to someone in the
MIT News Office, who has little familiarity
with the scientific issues of cold
Dr. Fred Mayer
fusion and with whom you know I
have had clashes.
In the Washington Post on Friday 26 April, Park made this statement
about Mayer after describing his theory as “wacky”: “There
is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the two scientists involved,
who are respected and well known as science managers [note the
put-down “managers”—the two are practicing physicists!] But
there are also sincere scientists who believe in psychokinesis, flying
saucers, creationism, and the Chicago Cubs.”
Continuing his coordinated attack, Park made this insulting
statement to the Chronicle of Higher Education--his assessment
of the Mayer-Reitz theory: “It is proof again that a degree in science
is not an inoculation against foolishness and mendacity.
It’s just got to be wrong.”
The following week, Park attacked me in his column again,
this time directly:
“MIT FUSION FLAKE FLACKS NEW BOOK! TINY LIT-
TLE HYDROGEN ATOMS called ‘hydrons,’ explain cold
fusion, according to two Ann Arbor physicists who held a
press conference in Boston last week. Why was the press conference
in Boston—and why was the MIT press office helping?
The answer seems to be that an MIT science writer is promoting
his new book, which contends that the evidence for
cold fusion is persuasive. He predicts that in the history of science
Pons and Fleischmann will be viewed as heroes.”
The major falsehood of this nearly libelous statement: at no
time during the Mayer-Reitz visit to Cambridge-Boston was Fire
from Ice mentioned publicly, in any context. What a stupid way
for me to “flack” a book! Park comes closer than anyone I know
to wearing well the term: “scientific bigot.” It was he who in
March 1990 described the First Annual Conference on Cold
Fusion in Salt Lake City as a “seance of true believers”—without
having attended the meeting or learned what went on.
Now, despite their outrageous intent to defame and ridicule,
one could dismiss the mouthings and electronic missiles of
Robert Park as the pathetic prejudice of an aging physicist, who
may fear that his world view is crumbling—as the history of science
has shown happens time and again. Perhaps all wisdom
does not reside in the APS, Park may be thinking. However, it is
unfortunately not so easy to dismiss the outright censorship of
one’s writings, particularly when that censorship is influenced
by another physicist, this one at MIT.
Over many months I had prepared a lengthy (9,000 word)
feature article on cold fusion that was to appear in Technology
Review at the end of this summer. The piece recounted the essentials
of the cold fusion story (see attached draft), by presenting
the arguments on both sides, though it did come to the general
conclusion that cold fusion might well be real, given the accumulating
evidence. My article had passed through a major revision
cycle, in which I had carefully adhered to the wishes of editor
Jonathan Schlefer. In mid to late April the word came back
from Jonathan that the revision seemed to be fine—not to worry.
Someone else within Technology Review even told me it was
being considered as a cover story. It was considered that good.
Imagine my shock on May 9, when I received a call from
Schlefer telling me that the article was not going to be published.
He offered no suggestion of any changes that could
make it acceptable— the usual option when an editor has some
new problem with a piece, particularly after he has professed to
find it basically satisfactory. Schlefer told me that it had been
sent out for review to three technical people, each of whom
allegedly had some problems with it, though these problems
were not clearly indicated nor were they discussed. There was a
blanket statement that each reviewer had found the piece too
positive. Further investigation on my part determined that,
except in one case, this was far from true.
A senior and respected MIT physicist seems to have been
mainly responsible for scuttling the article [Prof. Herman Feshbach].
I called to ask him what he had found objectionable.
Despite my distress that the article would not appear in Technology
Review, throughout the telephone conversation I was calm
and polite. His evident anger increased through the call. He
began by saying that fundamentally my article was “not a piece
34 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report