Friday, April 06, 2007

Purdue fusion matter still bubbling

The journalandcourier reports on April 6:

Purdue met Thursday's deadline for turning over the information, spokeswoman Jeanne Norberg said. But the university has refused comment other than the finding that there was no misconduct. Officials cite a university policy that keeps these matters private to protect researchers' reputations.

But LuAnn Canipe, spokeswoman for U.S. Rep Brad Miller, D-N.C., said Congress usually makes materials from these investigations public. Miller is chairman of the U.S. House Science and Technology's Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee.

"That's the point. It's been kept secret," Canipe said. "The subcommittee wants to make sure the process is in place at Purdue to make sure there is no wrongdoing."

It will likely take a week or more for committee members to review the data. From there, witnesses could be called. has additional text.

One finds, once again, the tricky reference to an article in Nature by a free lance journalist, Eugenie Reich:

In March 2006, two Purdue researchers claimed in an article in the British journal, Nature, that Taleyarkhan had attempted to thwart their efforts to test his "bubble fusion" claims.

That is, "Purdue researchers" did NOT author the March 2006 article in Nature.

One has further text in the fortwayne article directed to various predictions of the outcome of the investigation by Brad Miller:

Taleyarkhan, who's stood by his fusion claims, predicted in a statement this week that Miller's committee would conclude that his science is valid and that Purdue did nothing wrong.

"I feel positive that, when Chairman Brad Miller receives the relevant information, Purdue University's due process will be vindicated along with the underlying science and my group's resolve to play by the rules," Taleyarkhan's e-mail statement said.

Purdue nuclear engineering professor Lefteri Tsoukalas, who was one of the researchers quoted in the Nature article, said a finding that Purdue swept the issue under the rug could lead many funding groups to back away from the university.

"The U.S. government especially doesn't want to give funding, if the safeguards are not working properly," he said.

[the same text is found in the southbendtribune.]

note an earlier IPBiz post:


Post a Comment

<< Home