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

MIT, along with all other universities that I know anything about,
does not often intrude between its faculty members and their professional
actions as scientists. We don't, for example, review the manuscripts
of our faculty prior to publication, as do many corporations and
government organizations. We are used to a high level of controversy,
often between members of our own faculty. Disputes about scientific
data, methods and results are common and play a positive role in
advancing science. When MIT faculty take public positions as scientists
or citizens, it is assumed that they are acting as individuals and not as
official spokesman for the institution.
Criteria for institutional involvement in such matters derive from our
contractual and institutional responsibilities. Alleged violations of institutional
policies by members of our community will bring forth an institutional
response. As you undoubtedly know, at our request Prof. Philip
Morrison undertook a detailed examination of the issues raised by two
individuals concerning the manuscript in question and determined that
there was no tangible basis for further institutional action.
I hope that the various groups on our campus who are involved in
this research will continue to have collegial, scientific dialogues but I
see no basis to direct any of the groups to take specific actions.
Sincerely,
Sheila Widnall
Associate Provost and
Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of
Aeronautics and Astronautics
Exhibit Z-10
Dr. Charles McCutchen’s Letter to Eugene Mallove
August 18, 1992
Eugene F. Mallove, Bow, NH
Dear Dr. Mallove,
As you can see from the enclosures, I did not get far with Sheila Widnall.
I was surprised she did not respond to my point that Philip Morrison,
their own expert, had been misled by the paper. I had previously
been surprised when Stanley Luckhardt irritatedly refused to consider
publishing a full description of the way the experimenters interpreted
their calorimetry experiment. I thought this would be a good way to
remove some confusion and lower the anger level.
How about taking the advice Dr. Widnall offered in her letter of April
2, 1992, and submitting a letter to Journal of Fusion Energy. You might get
your points out ln the open for the experimenters to answer. Perhaps
the hot fusioneers will stop the Journal from publishing your letter. This
would be objective evidence that they are brass-knuckle types, evidence
you could take to Sheila Widnall to show what happens when one tries
to have an “open debate in the scientific literature, through peer
review,” with MIT scientists.
Sincerely yours, Charles W. McCutchen
Exhibit Z-11
Dr. Charles McCutchen’s Letter to Prof. Sheila Widnall
August 18, 1992
Dr. McCutchen’s final word to Provost Widnall fell on deaf
ears.—EFM
Sheila E. Widnall, Associate Provost
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 3-234
Dear Dr. Widnall,
Thank you for your letter of Aug. 3, 1992. I do not envy you in having
to deal with matters that take time away from the constructive business
of the university. But consider, it is the enforcement of decency
among scientists that makes collegiality possible. Without sanctions for
bad behavior, science becomes a jungle. Like it or not, you knuckle-rappers
are keepers of the flame.
MIT is using formal procedures to evade responsibility. You and I
agree, I think, that bad scientific ethics are a university's business. So far,
so good. But MIT thinks that getting Philip Morrison to give the matter
a once-over-lightly discharges its responsibility. (Substitute '”Eisen” for
“Morrison” and you have the beginning of the Baltimore affair.) I
explained that Morrison was misled by the inaccurate description of the
experiment, the very thing that I object to. That he was thus misled
shows that a correction should be published. You did not respond. This
is stonewalling.
Collegial mechanisms will not resolve the issue. They work when all
parties play fair. The MIT hot fusion people are not playing fair. They
published a misleading description of an experiment. The errors ln the
description were important. The collegial rules require that they publish
a clarification. They refuse to do so.
What can the cold fusion people do now? If they submit a complaining
letter to the journal that carried the original paper, the hot fusion
people will probably try to prevent it from being published, and likely
succeed. There will be more anger on both sides, and a lot less collegiality—all
because MIT management cannot bring itself to make the
hot fusion people, its own employees, behave like gentlemen. (Remember
that what they refuse to publish is their own, verbal description of
the way the major part of the experiment worked.)
I am sorry that MIT continues to tough it out. Apparently
the university feels it need not be fair to cold fusion people.
Perhaps it is afraid to be fair. Luckhardt’s negative response
to my proposal that a correction be published suggests that
hot fusion patriotism requires one to be unfair to cold fusion
people. Why else (unless there is real data faking that they are
trying to hide) will the hot fusion people not publish a correction
that would blunt some of the
Photo: Courtesy CIA
anger, and enhance their own reputation
for honesty?
Sincerely yours, Charles W.
McCutchen
“MIT Professor
Has a Theory
to Explain ‘Cold Fusion’”
MIT Provost John Deutch said, “MIT is a place where creative
individuals are encouraged to address scientific subjects of
the greatest significance. We are pleased to see Professor
Hagelstein proposing an explanation for ‘cold fusion’ and we
are encouraging investigators both here and at other research
institutions to continue their work on this most surprising
phenomenon, which may have enormous consequences.”
[Later, Dr. Deutch became Director of the CIA in the Clinton
cc: Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
Press Release
MIT News Office
April 12, 1989
Ponder the unthinkable. Question the status quo. Live in the world as
well as in your own nation. Dream of a better future, but
contribute to the present. Share your talents. Commune with all people.
Be steady friends and bold companions. Be honest in all that you do.
—MIT President Charles Vest’s Commencement Address June, 1998.
56 Infinite Energy • ISSUE 24, 1999 • MIT Special Report