Tabletop 鈥渂ubble鈥� fusion seemed too good to be true, so much so that Purdue University admitted on 11 May that it had reopened secret investigations into bubble fusion鈥檚 biggest proponent.
In 2002, Rusi Taleyarkhan, then at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and now at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, both in the US, claimed in a paper that bombarding a solvent with neutrons and sound waves created bubbles that triggered nuclear fusion reactions.
Purdue began looking into allegations of misconduct against Taleyarkhan in March 2006, amid accusations that the reported evidence of 鈥渟onofusion鈥� was actually caused by a radioactive isotope.
Advertisement
On 7 February 2007, though, Purdue absolved Taleyarkhan鈥檚 group of any misconduct.
Second investigation
However, it emerged that Purdue had already begun a new investigation. The announcement from Purdue was prompted by US congressman Brad Miller, chairman of the Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, who had requested documents related to sonofusion in March.
Purdue says it began the second investigation due to 鈥渁dditional allegations related to sonofusion鈥� that surfaced following its exoneration of Taleyarkhan in February. These allegations remain confidential.
According to vice president of university affairs Joseph Bennett, Purdue had kept the second investigation private 鈥渂ecause of the devastating impact any indication of misconduct can have on a researcher鈥�.
Appeal for witnesses
Mark Frankel, of the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program in Washington DC, worries that the government鈥檚 interest may politicise the issue. 鈥淚n an ideal world I don鈥檛 think you want to conduct these investigations with a member of Congress looking over your shoulder.鈥�
The second investigation has already caused the university to take unusual measures, says Bennett. It has asked potential witnesses to make written disclosures of any 鈥渕isconduct they may have witnessed in sonofusion research at the university鈥�, and asked that anyone else who may have evidence relating to misconduct come forward.
Purdue has also said that it would be following Miller鈥檚 recommendation that its second investigational committee include an expert from outside of Purdue.