Cold Fusion and the Public Interest
Explorations in Public Policies on an Important
Potential Energy Source1
Author’s
Note, April 19, 2009: The material on this webpage has been expanded upon and
further developed in a Professional Report prepared for the Master of Public
Affairs degree at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin. Click here for a PDF file of the
Professional Report, which is entitled “Evidence-Based
Public Policy toward Cold Fusion – Rational Choices for an Alternative Energy
Source”.
The M.P.Aff. degree was received in December 2008. A companion webpage
with an abstract of the Professional Report can be viewed by clicking here.
Also, a
draft paper on the validity of cold fusion according to the criteria of
scientific skeptics has been prepared with Ed Storms and is being submitted to
candidate journals for publication. A companion webpage on this report can be
seen by clicking here. Click here for a PDF of the entire report
|
Thesis:
Levels of Evidence of Cold Fusion and Corresponding Policy Responses There
appears to be at least a preponderance of evidence for the existence
of cold fusion (CF) reactions. Given the high level of public interest in the
success of CF phenomena, the appropriate public policy response is,
conservatively, to reinstate the field as a legitimate area of research and
support it with other promising but unproven energy sources. A more moderate
(less conservative) policy would be to support CF at the level of past
support for hot fusion research. A
strong case can also be made for clear and convincing evidence of the
reality of CF. In this case, the conservative policy
response would also be to support it at least at the level of hot fusion
research support in the past. A moderate policy at such a high level of
evidence would be to institute a crash development program on a scale
comparable to the If
evidence for CF reality is established beyond a reasonable doubt, a |
Levels of Evidence and Associated Probabilities
|
Level of Evidence |
Probability
of CF Existence |
|
Preponderance of Evidence |
50-70% |
|
Clear and Convincing Evidence |
70-90% |
|
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt |
>90% |
In Summary
|
Level of Evidence |
Probability |
Policy
Response |
|
|
|
|
Conservative |
Moderate |
|
Preponderance of Evidence |
50-70% |
Reinstate CF to full legitimacy |
Support CF as hot fusion |
|
Clear and Convincing Evidence |
70-90% |
Support CF as hot fusion |
Institute crash program |
|
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt |
>90% |
Institute crash program |
Institute crash program |
Cold fusion (CF) is a potential new method of
achieving nuclear fusion, with release of large quantities of energy, at
temperatures close to the surface of the earth. Nuclear fusion is known to
occur at very high temperatures, such as in the interior of the sun and in
hydrogen bombs. Hot fusion produces vast amounts of energy through the
conversion of mass into energy according to Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc2. CF holds the promise of accomplishing
this conversion – and associated release of energy – on the earth’s surface
without requiring the high temperatures of the sun or hydrogen bombs.
Primarily because of the promise of nuclear
fusion for providing unlimited quantities of very low cost energy, the public
interest in its success is well established and universally accepted. The human
benefit of constructive (non-bomb) generation of energy from fusion has led to
the expenditure of over $15 billion in the
CF may, or may not, be real. If it turns out to be real, CF holds the promise of being among the most important beneficial natural phenomena for humankind so far discovered. CF was rejected by mainstream science shortly after it was introduced in 1989. However, research since then strongly indicates that CF will eventually be established as a real, universally-accepted phenomenon.
The objective of this website is to make the case – based on objective evidence of the reality of CF, and the strong public interest in its success – for changes in prevailing negative CF public policies. The case is made through the following observations and assertions. The assertions are supported elsewhere on this website.
1. Public policy toward CF may consist of one of the following five approaches:
a) Discontinue research altogether;
b) Continue research under marginalized conditions (current practice);
c) Reinstate CF legitimacy and support it at a level with other potential energy sources;
d) Support CF at a level commensurate with hot fusion research of past years; and
e) Institute a crash program, on a scale comparable to the Manhattan Project, which resulted in the atomic bomb in World War II.
2. Although public policy is not always set based on rationality, policies that are rational (based on evidence) almost always serve the public interest better than other grounds for policy making.
3. Public policy toward CF should therefore be established on a rational basis – determined by the level of evidence that it is real.
4. Experimental (scientific) evidence of the existence of CF was found in the initial months after its announcement in March 1989, although there were difficulties in replication, to be sure. Continued research in the nearly 20 years since then has resulted in a substantial, and growing, body of evidence for the reality of CF.
5. Scientific evidence can be rationally interpreted in terms that are readily recognized (and utilized) by policy makers by using terms for level of evidence borrowed from the field of law:
a) Preponderance of Evidence (>50% probability)
b) Clear and Convincing Evidence (>70%), and
c) Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (>90%).
6. The interpretation of scientific evidence in these terms can be made on the basis of:
a) Initial experimental verifications in 1989 and 1990,
b) The large number of confirmations since then (by different investigators using a variety of methods in many laboratories around the world), and
c) Selected particularly convincing experiments.
7. This interpretation of evidence is strengthened by probabilistic analysis using Bayesian networks and considering the initial experimental verifications.
8.
These
interpretations indicate that the reality of CF phenomena is established at
least at the Preponderance of Evidence level, and a strong case can also be
made for a Clear and Convincing Evidence level.
9.
The
Bayesian analysis indicates a level of evidence at Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
10. With these levels of evidence, public policy can be established under two scenarios – conservative (go-slow) approach and moderate approach (to maximize the public interest).
11. If CF is ultimately found not to be real, the primary risk would be the wasted expenditure of public funds on a “blind alley” of research. However, the history of research is replete with examples of initially positive indications of valuable phenomena that did not prove out after additional investigation. The risk of failure is in the very nature of public support for pursuing potentially beneficial phenomena, but this does not generally stop the research effort. Given the very high potential public benefit of CF, the risk of loss of (wasted) research funds is minimal in comparison.
12.
The rational approach to setting policy toward
CF support can therefore be summarized as follows:
|
Level of Evidence |
Probability |
Policy
Response |
|
|
|
|
Conservative |
Moderate |
|
Preponderance of Evidence |
50-70% |
Reinstate CF to full legitimacy |
Support CF as hot fusion |
|
Clear and Convincing Evidence |
70-90% |
Support CF as hot fusion |
Institute crash program |
|
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt |
>90% |
Institute crash program |
Institute crash program |
14.
Thus
CF should be reinstated as a legitimate field of research even under a
conservative policy scenario given that at least a Preponderance of Evidence
level of evidence for its existence can be reasonably asserted (See Item 8).
15.
Given
the high level of public interest in its success, it may also be asserted that
CF should be pursued under a crash program if its existence is accepted as
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (See Item 9).
16.
Between
these levels of evidence and policy response scenarios, CF should be accorded
research support at least on a par with the level of support of hot fusion in
the past.
17.
The best public policies toward CF – those that
best serve the public interest – must be rational and based on evidence for the
existence of CF. The evidence is strong that CF is a real phenomenon based on
scientific and probabilistic considerations. The risks of affirmative CF
policies appear to be minimal in comparison to the potential human welfare
benefits.
The demonstrated public interest in the success of CF indicates that the phenomenon should be given the best possible chance to be proven real and brought to beneficial fruition. With so much evidence of its potentially being real, and with its tremendous importance to the future of humanity, CF appears to warrant favorable policies and receive full public support for its development. Within a rational (evidence-based) policy-making framework, current negative CF public policies appear to be irrational and not in the public interest.
1Besides energy, CF may offer other beneficial
contributions to the welfare of humanity, such as elemental transmutation.
A fuller expansion of the above observations
and assertions is presented in a companion webpage: “The Case for Cold Fusion - Why Public Policy toward on an Important Potential Energy Source Needs
to Be Changed”
Additional Webpages (in Development):
Cold Fusion Questions and Answers
More About This Cold Fusion Policy Website
Is Cold Fusion Research Science or Pseudoscience?
Website by:
Thomas W. Grimshaw, Ph.D., Master of Public Affairs Candidate (Mid-Career Option). Over 80% complete.
Click here
for a summary of credentials.
Click here for Master of Public Affairs program description.
Website Initiated November 2007. Last Update: June 2008.