Superconductivity Formula Gets Frigid Reception In The Field

Nobel laureate Philip Anderson was shocked when he picked up the New York Times last month. There on the front page was an article announcing a bold new theory in his field. The story said that Caltech chemist William Goddard had come up with a simple explanation for high- temperature superconductivity—probably the hottest mystery in materials science today. Not only that, the article reported, but calculations based on Goddard’s theory showed that the idea of room-temperature superconducting materials was no more than an impossible dream. To Anderson, that Times article made for a fascinating story, but one that simply didn’t compute. Indeed, after polling many of the top superconductivity researchers in the United States, The Scientist was unable to find a single scientist off Caltech’s campus who thinks the theory is right. The September 26 article by Times science writer Malcolm Browne appeared on the first day of the American Chemical Society’s weeklong fall meeting in Los Angeles. During the sessions that followed, no fewer than 11 scientists presented competing theories. Nevertheless, the Times article— and others published the same day—chose to focus on the work of William Goddard, despite indications that his work had very little support in the community. Working Overtime Many scientists are now asking why. Given such strong criticism, how could such glowing stories have been written in leading papers like the Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Wall Street Journal? One important reason was availability. Goddard and Caltech had worked overtime to make the story tempting to reporters. On September 22, four days before the theory was presented at the ACS meeting, Caltech public relations officer Robert Finn called major newspapers and wire services and offered to fax them a press release that described Goddard’s findings. And the message sold itself. A six-page summary, embargoed until the morning of the presentation, included the fact that Goddard estimated that superconductivity couldn’t be sustained at temperatures higher than 225 K (-550F). Wall Street Journal reporter David Stipp, who wrote one of the first-day articles, admits that the exact number caught his attention. “The Tc upper bound made an easy news peg,” Stipp says. ACS officials soon heard about the unusual amount of interest in Goddard’s theory and moved quickly to ward off what they feared was a pending media fiasco. “We didn’t want that one singled out as the most newsworthy,” says ACS organizer Nancy Enright. Enright hurriedly arranged for a press conference to take place on the afternoon before Goddard’s presentation—”to offer the opportunity for other theories to be shown,” she says. But her effort at damage control fell victim to unforgiving newspaper schedules. Most of the reporters had already interviewed Goddard and were rushing to meet a midafternoon deadline. Few bothered to attend the 3 P.M. press conference, which featured the theories of Goddard, Richard Martin of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Thomas George of the State University of New York, Buffalo (though Browns was at the conference). To their credit, most reporters managed to speak to other scientists, and their stories included reservations about Goddard’s theory. Even Browne had phoned in an addition to his piece voicing doubts. But, the addition came too late to make any but the final edition. And so the only scientist other than Goddard mentioned in the article that most people saw was the University of Houston’s Paul Chu, who admitted he was not familiar with the theory. The Wall Street Journal’s Stipp agrees that additional calls are essential to measure the value of such a novel theory, but opines that the subject is a tough nut to crack for most reporters. “Physics, being so mathematical, is particularly hard to cover,” he says. “And this isn’t the most egregious case of had reporting on superconductivity. There have been some other wild reports picked up—sometimes in my paper, sometimes even by me.” But if physics is particularly difficult for the average journalist, all the more reason, some scientists argue, for caution when it comes to publicizing new findings. Goddard’s theory, says Nobelist Ander- son, “it’s a little worse than incompetent.” In a letter to the Times, Anderson and Rutgers University scientist Elihu Abrahams chastised the paper for publishing “a remarkable example of public acceptance of shoddy science,” and scolded reporter Browne for not talking with other researchers before running the story. Others are equally emphatic. Says Robert Schrieffer, a Nobel laureate at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the ‘S’ in the seminal BCS theory on superconducting. “[Goddard] may have a theory of something, but the chance that he has a theory of superconductivity is essentially zero. He’s off by a country mile.” Paul Chu had said, after Browne had described the theory to him, “If it can really predict the conditions of superconductivity, it is very important.” But now he finds the theory’s numerical precision “implausible” and sympathizes with Anderson’s criticism. Chu’s collaborator, Columbia University’s Muwkuen Wu, agrees, adding “We really don’t see what the theory can offer.” In fact, most of Goddard’s theory wasn’t even new; he had published its foundations—but not the catchy temperature figures—nine months before in Science (1988, volume 239, pages 896 and 899). Goddard defends his decision to announce his more detailed theory to the press before it was presented to the scientific community. (He intends to send a new paper to Science in time for it to appear this winter.) “My preference would be to have all the details in a scientific publication first,” he says, “but part of what a scientist should be doing is to let the public see the excitement of discovery.” Besides, he adds, “for every theorist there’s another theory.” Publicity Campaign Goddard says he never intended his theory to be the last word on the subject. Ironically, one aspect of his theory that has been heavily criticized—his use of an unheardof three significant figures in his predicted transition temperature— was actually done to make the theory easier to knock down. “I think that theorists should use precise numbers so that they can be easily proved right or wrong [by experimentalists],” Goddard explains. So, was the well-orchestrated publicity campaign for Goddard’s theory justified? No, say scientists like Anderson, who believe premature publication—and hype—can only harm science’s reputation. Yes, says Goddard, wbo argues that both the public and the science community are best served when scientists work with public relations experts to convey “the excitement of discovery” while also providing their experimentalist colleagues with theories that can be quickly tested. If the recent history of superconductivity is any guide, this debate can only escalate as scientists increasingly reach for page one to publicize their efforts.

Superconductivity Formula Gets Frigid Reception In The Field

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of