Con Artists of Science cont...

Continued...

The problem with this approach is that it requires a hefty slice of luck. In fact, almost all scientific discoveries require a healthy dose of the l-word, of being in the right place at the right time. But this isn't the case when you set about the task of 'discovering something that isn't really there'.

Trick 3: Find something-that’s-not-really-there
You see, this is necessary because science is getting full. Way-back-when you only had to walk around with your eyes open to make Earth shattering discoveries. Watch an apple falling and ta-da - a universal theory of gravity. Notice how birds' beaks are specialised to crack what nuts are available on their island – evolution is yours. Of course I'm grossly oversimplifying but you see the problem.

Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann famously got around this by claiming to have achieved 'Cold Fusion' – nuclear conditions close to room temperature and atmospheric pressure. What's even better, from the point of view of someone wanting to get their name in New Scientist but without a research grant, is that they achieved this with the scientific equivalent of an empty cornflakes packet and some sticky back plastic – that is to say, they used a pair of electrodes and some heavy water stored inside a Dewar flask.

The pair's press conference in 1989 generated plenty of interest and sparked lots of attempts to replicate the effect, but without success. Unfortunately, for Piers and Fleischmann, this has led to the whole 'Cold Fusion' area gaining notoriety in the public consciousness as a prime example of pathological science. Their discovery turned into being something you wouldn't really want to boast about at dinner-parties, never mind to Jonathan Ross.

But French physicist Rene-Prosper Blondlot enjoyed a bit more success with discovering-something-that's-not-really-there and an important lesson is to be learned from one of the reasons behind his success: if you're going to discover something-that's-not-really-there, try to discover it during a time of high patriotism.

When, in 1903, Blondlot thought he'd discovered the N-ray (thought then to be a novel new type of radiation), his homeland, France, was still reeling from defeat in the Franco-Prussian war (1870) and looking for a bit of scientific revenge after the German William Röntgen's discovery of X-rays in 1895. Following the N-ray 'discovery' physicists (notably French physicists) had a field day, discovering N-rays emanating from almost everything. This went on until 1904 when US physicist Robert W. Wood debunked the myth by traveling to Blondlot's lab and removing a crucial prism from the apparatus while leaving the other experimenters still claiming to be observing N-rays from a partially deconstructed experiment. Despite this, Blondlot still had the last laugh – to this day a street in Nancy is named after him, so at least he's got something to show the grandkids.

Well, there you are, how to become scientifically famous by just cheating a little bit. But looking at the sort of fame you get, the risk to your reputation and the empty, hollow feeling you're bound to be left with, the question is, 'is it worth it?'. If it's fame you’re after, surely it's better just to eat worms in front of TV cameras on some tropical island. Or broadcast the birth of your child over the Internet. Or sing out of tune/dance in front of some judges who think they are more part of the show than you are .Or...[Repeat until civilisation collapses].

Previous page 1 | 2 Next page