Slashdot Mirror
Ununoctium Discovery a Mistake
Lars Mooseantlers writes: "The New York Times reports, "Scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California yesterday retracted a 1999 claim that they had created a new, superheavy element." Hmmm... first the Higgs Boson doesn't exist, now Element 118 turns out to be a myth too. Or is it all just part of some wider, cosmic conspiracy? ;)" Mmmmm, ununoctium. Well, I guess this story's out of date, and so is this paper.
Disclaimer: I am a church-going Christian, and have been for many years.
The key difference between religion and science is right here, from the article: "As scientists, we have a responsibility when a mistake like that is made to fess up."
I visited the Institute for Creation Research a few years ago. These fools try to make the claim that belief in evolution is as much a matter of faith as belief in God -- and one counter to the Bible.
But this is patently false. The difference is, when scientists learn something new, they -usually- (but there are exceptions) give up on the old theories and make new ones.
Compare with religion: Once something becomes part of religious doctrine, it can take CENTURIES before someone convinces people that it was a mistake. And the folks at the ICR are like this: You cannot convince them, even with scriptures that plainly contradict their beliefs, that they're wrong. The human doctrine has become their God.
The relevant point I'm trying to make here is this: Don't poke fun at the scientists for making a mistake; give them credit for admitting it. It's what they ought to be doing. It's how science advances, and how we learn. This is, in the end, a very good thing.
The creation of new heavy elements through heavy element fusion in particle accelerators is real. It is how: seaborgium: 1974, bohrium: 1981, meitnerium: 1982, hassium: 1984, ununnilium: 1994(and others I believe), were all created. The researchers in this case thought they were reaching a so called sea of stability(and had good reason to believe this) where nuclear stability would slightly increase with mass again enough to allow the production of atoms with neasureably long half lives before falling off with increased nuclear mass again.
Why would they have come out retracting thier previous claim 3 years after the fact at a time when no one was questioning thier results if they had falsified data? They went over thier data again and realized something was wrong, they retracted an honest but mistaken claim, this is how science works at it's best. When an astronomer a few years ago at the yearly American Astrophysical meeting found out (WHILE HE WAS AT THE ACTUAL MEETING NO LESS) that he had made a mistake in his calculations and the stars he had been studying were not orbited by any extrasolar planets, he got up in front of the entire congregation of scientists at the meeting and confessed he had made a mistake. He recieved a standing ovation. That is exactly what should happen here.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Scientists have announced that Schrodinger's cat is dead. Oh wait, he's fine. No, he's not; he's dead. Er, now he's alive again...
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
This may not be the best time to reveal the new element I've discovered, unobtainium. It has no mass, infinite strength, and a firewire port.
If I were going to make a claim of this magnitude I would make sure that there is repeatability of the results before I opened my mouth about it.
Firstly, this discovery isn't anything that will result in fundamental shifts in scientific knowledge, nor is it anything that will affect the daily lives of individuals (in the same way as, say, nuclear fission). So I'm not sure why you would consider this a discovery of great magnitude, aside from the fact that an average person could probably understand the nature of the discovery. Furthermore, repeatability is the work of other researchers, so in this case the system worked as intended.
I believe that this research is much needed and I detest the fact that this type of bogus science really hurts the rest of the legitimate scientific community by making funds that much harder to come by.
Again, I disagree. The research in question was neither "bogus", nor did it hurt the reputation of the rest of the scientific community. There was some evidence from an experiment that could have been a legitimate discovery, and it was published as such, then withdrawn when the evidence was reviewed. In fact, as many posters have pointed out, the forthrightness of the scientists in pointing out their own mistakes can only help their reputations. The research funding agencies understand how science works, and won't likely turn off the money taps because of one failed experiment.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.