Organized Science Often Resists Innovative Change

The history of science is littered with examples where the scientific community has ignored the principle behind Einstein's statement quoted at the beginning of this chapter. As pointed out by Smith {44}, science has become reoriented toward profit. Quoting:

"... science is not the danger; scientists encouraged to do bad science to survive are. " ... "... changing the way modern science is funded is an enormous undertaking, but it is a necessary one if we want to protect our future. Call it managed risk."

Science's resistance to change is so well known to historians of science that it is rather universally accepted — although usually not made explicit to undergraduates. Further, scientists are under great pressure to conform:

1. After all, science is patronized; someone must fund the laboratories, the research supplies, the salaries and personnel benefits, etc.

2. To procure and protect its patronage, science has become quite organized, particularly with respect to how the funds — received and channeled down from the top — are cut into individual packages (research grants and research programs) and made available for competition among the "performing" chain of universities and research laboratories.

3. In the last few decades, there has risen an increasingly fierce demand by universities that the scientific researchers (i) be successful in attracting outside funds and (ii) file patents assigned to the university. So fierce has this demand become, that the research professor's continued livelihood may literally depend upon his or her success in bringing in extra funding. Further, much of his time is now spent in writing proposals to

compete for these "packaged funds". When he wins them, the kind of research and the areas of research are already stringently defined, and he dare not deviate — else there will shortly be no more funding packages won, no funding for his graduate students, and soon thereafter there will be no job of any importance for the professor!

4. In the United States, all the government National Laboratories and our universities are intensely seeking and filing patents! So small, independent inventors cannot deal with these organizations, without risking and almost guaranteeing the loss of their patents and intellectual property. Funding dangled in front of the inventor, much like a carrot dangled in front of a horse, is often tied to "march in" rights {45, 46} calling for surrender of the inventor's patent rights altogether, whenever the government — i.e., a single bureaucrat — wants to take it. All that has to be done is to declare that the inventor is not getting it developed and to market fast enough. Science has thus become more avaricious and — some inventors would even say — it increasingly involves overt and covert piracy of intellectual property rights. From personal experience, reluctantly I would not argue with that statement. Simply ask Larry Fullerton of Time Domain Corporation about his struggle with a National Laboratory over patent rights to his ultrawideband communications invention and technology.23 It eventually resulted in a "draw" of sorts. He did not lose his rights, but the government gained them also, in competition with him. The government circumvented his patent, even though they did not succeed in taking it. We were delighted to recently see that Larry (the company is Time Domain, Inc.) received its 74th patent in this technology, as well as a ruling that will allow the technology to at last go to market.

5. The result is a dramatic increase in the pressure on working scientists and independent inventors to conform, and to "play the game by the rules". Then everybody up the scientific food chain is fed, and is happy and secure. The journals happily publish the research papers and results, the professor gets

23 Stephen Fenichell, "Radio Flyer," Discover, 22(5), May 2001. Fullerton's technology has been given a limited go-ahead by the FCC, which has drafted standards and regulations in the area as of February 2002.

funding for his graduate students, the university gets that wonderful overhead cut of the research funding — such as half or it or more — and the entire apparatus is like a very large and tidy Titanic adhering to its ponderous course toward the iceberg. Meanwhile, truly new and innovative science discoveries — vulnerable and desperately needing nurturing funding during their initial embryonic state — get shoved aside, crushed, and starved in the funding rush to adhere to performance of the prescribed funding packages.

6. In this environment, the day of the "defenders of the scientific faith" has arrived! A small percentage of conventional scientists who are dogmatic and vociferous, are now very prominently attacking any novel experiments and ideas with a vehemence seldom seen in organized science. It is again reminiscent of some of the noted scientific attacks in history, e.g., as pointed out by Hellman {47}. Yet, because of the financial pressure upon the scientific community, and the increased pressures to conform, there is little restraint of the dogmatists and they are almost never called to task. Cold fusion is a current example. The American Physical Society has recently issued a statement condemning perpetual motion machines — yet the society's members continue to condone and use a classical EM model that assumes every charge in the universe to continuously be creating energy from nothing. Even the American Physical Society has not recognized what broken symmetry of opposite charges means with respect to the common dipole and dipolarity in every circuit. Nuclear reactions at low spatial energy (which means at extraordinarily high total energy when the c2-compressed time energy is considered) do indeed sometimes occur in carefully controlled experiments, whether or not we yet sufficiently understand the reactions theoretically, and regardless of whether we can get the anomalous results to happen every time. Yet this area of nuclear interactions at low spatial energy {48} — and unknown to the scientific community, at very high time energy {49, 50, 51} — has been savaged by these self-appointed spokespersons for the "official" community, none of whom even account the compressed energy in the time increment portion of the photon. More than six hundred successful experiments in multiple laboratories, by respected scientists in multiple nations worldwide, are now

rather resoundingly ignored. Yet the replication rate for good cold fusion experiments is certainly higher than many of the replication rates for novel and little-understood phenomena in large particle accelerators, and the cold fusion experiments are also far cheaper24 While particle accelerators are "popular" in their ability to garner huge funding, their cost/benefit ratio compared with, say, cold fusion experiments, may be abysmally low. Simply examine the decades of effort and many billions of dollars expended on the search for warm fusion (using spatial energy only). What has it produced, in terms of watts of power on the power lines? When will it produce any electrical power of any significance? Prototype cold fusion power systems have in fact been produced and patented {52}. With seed money from the scientific community and using a higher symmetry electrodynamics, cold fusion power could proceed at a rapid pace.

Strangely, the ever-present pressure to conform to that which is already known and accepted has often made science its own worst enemy throughout its history. Establishment scientists and the "system itself' now probably block — and have blocked over the decades — more innovative scientific research than does any other factor {53}.

Going Green Energy

Going Green Energy

What Is The First Essential Step For Going Green With Energy? Get Everything You Need To Know To Get Started With Helping The Earth And Conserving Energy. This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To Learning About Energy Sources That Will Help Save The Planet.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment