Elements 116 and 118 are Bogus? 322
prostoalex writes "In this era of corporate misbehavior and overstatement of results who can you trust? Scientific sources, of course. Well, turns out people at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory lied about their discovery of elements 116 and 118. Associated Press has the story, quoting the lab officials charging the researchers with "scientific misconduct"."
Just one person (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just one person (Score:4, Informative)
i'd say it's pretty safe to use the plural version
Re:Just one person (Score:4, Insightful)
It takes a VERY LONG TIME to peer-review high energy atomic physics, let alone duplicate the experiment. So just because they didn't catch it when they first read the data DOES NOT MEAN THEY OBVIOUSLY NEGLECTED TO VERIFY HIS CLAIMS.
Data fraud does occur, but it is almost always caught by the peer review process.
Re:Just one person (Score:5, Informative)
Shank admitted that basic verifications necessary for such lofty scientific proclamations were not followed.
"In this case, the most elementary checks and data archiving were not done," Shanks said.
When the lab's director says that "basic verifications"..."were not followed", i feel pretty safe in saying they "obviously neglected to verify his claims" (at least for a good while)
Re:Just one person (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd also say that it was probably just one scientist. Say he's expected to do some work and collect some data, gets bored, screws it up, and then fabricates it. Lucky he now looks like he did it right and is ok. Plus, if you work a place like Lawrence, it's expected of you to be a top notch scientist. Which is quite likely why no one thought to check his results.
Anyone wanna buy my 117 stock? (Score:5, Funny)
And in related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And in related news... (Score:2)
-"I am here in antarctica talking to Dr. Bull, of the CowboyNeal Institute of Elementary Physics.
Dr. Bull, how is it that you were able to discover such a difficult element in a locale with such harsh conditions."
- "Well, CoyboyNealium is only producable in the right conditions of thousands and thousands of clicking mice in a locale full of penguins..."
Re:And in related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And in related news... (Score:2)
Re:And in related news... (Score:3, Funny)
Is it possible.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not a really big physics person, but I thought that there would be a way to put the extra proton in there and throw in an electron to make a heavier one...
Also, how did they mess it up in "Thinking" that they had found them, when they really hadn't? Again I am not a subatomic physicist, so this could be a stupid question..
Re:Is it possible.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is it possible.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Then - assuming any stability can be achieved past 120 - we'll get the superactinides around 122...
Re:Is it possible.... (Score:2)
"Stability" in this context would mean having a half life measured in something longer than fractions of a second. Since such an element does not exist on Earth now, if it ever was there it must have decayed completely. As with any transuranics and technetium which might have been present when the Earth was formed.
Re:Is it possible.... (Score:4, Informative)
If we had stopped looking after Francium, the ionizing smoke detector would never had been built.
Re:Is it possible.... (Score:2)
Not that you would really order the full load up front, but it made a good illustration of why you don't find these elements lying around...
The Earth is something like 4.5 billion years old. You don't find any transuranics laying around. Even those such as plutonium which has been produced in large quantities in the last few decades.
Technically, no. (Score:2)
Re:Technically, no. (Score:2)
Actually, technetium has been discovered in nature. Just in infestimally small quantities. Also, plutonium was discovered around a natural "nuclear reactor" in Africa.
Re:Technically, no. (Score:2)
Relative to the age of the Earth these elements have short half lives. Which is why they don't tend to be found on Earth. There is no reason why supernova explosions would not create all elements (up to some limit probably rather higher than 92). AFIAK transuranics end up joining one of the "natural" decay chains at some point or other.
Re:Is it possible.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The atomic number is just the number of protons in the atom, so you could in principle build all of them without gaps.
However, you can have gaps between stable (or almost-stable) elements, with only very-unstable elements in between. That's the whole idea of the "magic island of stability" mentioned in the articles.
Even-numbered heavy elements also tend to be more stable than odd-numbered elements (as even-numbered nuclei tend to be more energetically favourable, and there's an easy decay path that turns odd nuclei into even ones [beta decay]).
Re:Is it possible.... (Score:2)
You don't even have to look at transuranics to see this. Most obvious would be francium which is very much less stable than either radon or radium. Or technetium...
Even-numbered heavy elements also tend to be more stable than odd-numbered elements (as even-numbered nuclei tend to be more energetically favourable, and there's an easy decay path that turns odd nuclei into even ones [beta decay]).
Alpha decay will leave an odd element as odd and even as even.
Re:Is it possible.... (Score:2)
Thus you'd expect such nuclei to tend to undergo beta decay. Since that will change from odd Z & odd N to even Z & even N.
Re:Is it possible.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is it possible.... (Score:2)
Today, we know the determining property is the atomic number, i.e., the charge of the nucleus, and the atomic number is discrete, since one can only have an integer number of protons in a nucleus. Until Moseley's X-ray data, there wasn't any experimental proof that atomic number was a physical property.
This development process is really what made chemistry into a hard science in the 19th century.
Re:Is it possible.... (Score:2)
Re:Is it possible.... (Score:2)
Re:Is it possible.... (Score:2)
Re:Is it possible.... (Score:2)
I know that there are stability "gaps" in the total number of nucleons (protons AND neutrons) that can be in a nucleus. This is a big problem in trying to figure out where the heavy (ie: not hydrogen/helium) elements came from.
The theory is that they came from fusion in stars. In calculating these reactions, we usually assume two-body collisions, since they're overwhelmingly more probably than multi-body ones. What you run into is the 5/8 gap. There are no stable nuclei with 5 or 8 nucleons.
So how do you get anything above 8 nucleons? It's got to be from multi-body collisions, because no two-body collisions can create one! (Actually, 7 + 2 or 7 + 3 break you out, but forming 7 is already unlikely). It's kind of cool that all of the heavy elements come from these chance occurances.
(As a side note, the predicted abundances match those observed, so this is probably a pretty good theory)
Look on the bright side (Score:2, Funny)
Looks as though they at least get the message that belated honesty is better than none at all.
Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is terrible news! (Score:2, Funny)
I just ordered a new case for my dual Athlon Linux box made of Ununhexium [webelements.com] with Ununoctium [webelements.com] details! Man did I get screwed...
Re:This is terrible news! (Score:2, Funny)
Is it still there? (Score:2)
Trust? (Score:3, Insightful)
The scientists rechecked there data and retracted there claims... where's the cover up? Isn't that pretty much normal in the scientific community?
(Ok... maybe they should have check their results before announcing anything, but its not like they denied anything or blatantly lied!)
Re:Trust? (Score:5, Informative)
Had the original announcement was a discovery that they believed was based on real, bona fide data, that would be different -- just part of the normal scientific discovery process.
Re:Trust? (Score:2)
"There is a good chance that the error was pointed out to them by someone *outside* their research team. That would be negligence on their part."
That is indeed possible, but the way the peer review process works is to get someone who is very competent in the field, but did not actually do the work, so that you can get an unbiased review of the work. If you've ever worked so long on a report - after awhile you start missing your own mistakes. That's why you give it to someone else to catch any of your mistakes.
If the scientist had made a mistake, gave a press release saying "I discovered Element X" and then the peer review process said "No you didn't", then its up to the original scientist to verify the original claims. If the original scientist lied right from the start - then THAT is when the scientist is in deep shit and usually gets fired and ostracized by the scientific community. Retractions of data are made ALL THE TIME, and probably 40-50% of them are caught after publication by other researchers. The other 60-50% of the data is retracted by the original researchers who caught the mistake after publication when they shared the data with another scientist.
This is not a cause for concern. This is a case where the system is working just fine.
Old News (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Old News (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Old News (Score:3, Funny)
This guy is going to be pissed... (Score:4, Funny)
Here is the /. [slashdot.org] story.
Re:This guy is going to be pissed... (Score:2)
Angry? Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Angry? Why? (Score:2, Informative)
In related news.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In related news.... (Score:4, Funny)
Why are these elements? (Score:1)
Why are these even elements, I mean, how can you even be sure of what you have in a millisecond. I guess they weren't.
New table of elements (Score:2, Funny)
Choctonium:
Atomic Number: 118
Atomic Weight: Delicious
will now have to be eliminated from the table.
Gasp! (Score:2)
Oh, no!
Wasn't one of those elements up for being named "Bullonium" or "Baloneyum"?
Didn't also figure prominently in the list of ingredients required to initiate cold fusion?
Correct Element Names (Score:2, Funny)
Only on element 118? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Only on element 118? (Score:5, Funny)
The compound is usually responsible for melting down servers (unless they're powered by Linux running on a Game Boy or C64!)
Re:Only on element 118? (Score:2)
When will they learn? (Score:5, Funny)
Very silly to pin the blame on one individual in the research group. Don't these guys read? Don't they know disgruntled physicists, especially when they're disgraced atomic/nuclear scientists, always come back as super-villains to wreak their vengeance on their enemies and an unsuspecting world?
How long before their suspect builds himself an atomic-powered titanium alloy suit with miniature particle accelerator blasters?
Mmm... (Score:2, Funny)
Martin: "Delicious?"
Krabappel: "Correct. I would also accept snacktacular."
Retracted last July? (Score:3, Insightful)
So they said they'd found something, but the confirming experiments didn't come through. They've retracted their claim. That's pretty much how it works. Seems like you can still trust science, precisely because of stories like this. Right?
Re:Retracted last July? (Score:2)
Re:Retracted last July? (Score:2)
I understand that reading the links on
Interesting... (Score:3, Funny)
element names (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:element names (Score:2)
ScienceWire(SW) Press Release: (Score:2)
ScienceWire has learned that Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories (DOE:LBNL) is under investigation from the Nobel Physics Committee regarding possible fraud with respect to the existence of Elements 116 and 118.
Lab director, Beef Shank, is "shocked, shocked, I tell you" that fabrication of research went on under his watch. "We have since fired Arthur Anderson from our peer review committee, and have commenced an aggressive investigation in concert with the Nobel Committee, and intend to release our findings when the facts come to light. No further comment."
The individual singled out by Shank, but not identified by him [what the fuck? sometimes satire writes itself -- Editor], was identified by several newspapers as fired physicist and author Victor Nabokov.
Nabokov was suspended by the lab in November, later fired, and has a grievance pending regarding his dismissal for writing books about a quest for an island of stability in a sea of daughter radioisotopes with short half-lives.
Shank lauded his own department for ferreting out the fraud. "There is nothing more important for a laboratory than scientific integrity," Shank told lab employees. "Only with such integrity will the Congress, which funds our work, provide us with more grant money. On the bright side, at least we can conclusively say that we've found at least two candidates for the element Unobtainium."
LBNL stock found no such stability, closing down almost 70% today, to $1.14 (US protons), or $1.84 (Euro neutrons), on heavy volume.
In other news... (Score:2)
Happens all the time (Score:3, Interesting)
Case in point: My mother worked for a university (I'll save them face, because I'm sure it happens at every university) where her co-worker had faked his PHD, and was working on bogus research. All results faked. He didn't have a clue what he was doing.
Okay, no problem, you say
A few years later, they found a way of quietly dismissing him on legit grounds. Its all about vested interest - it makes these schools look stupid to admit that they dont have the time/money (nevermind that trust is still important, IMHO) to cross-check every single research project and prof they hire.
It's an unfortunate consequence of life - some people scam, and sometimes the scammed party wants to keep the details silent (having been sexually abused, its the same deal - you feel (wrongly) stupid for being the victim, although with the university, alot more than my pride is involved
Anyhow, dont think this is an isolated case. Take everything with a grain of salt, considering the money and prestige involved in the stakes of science, until its powering your coffee-maker.
Re:Happens all the time (Score:2)
Pardon me, but this seems to trivialize sexual abuse a bit too much
T
Re:Happens all the time (Score:2)
I'm only illustrating the dynamics of being a victim of something - your first tendancy is to want to hide it, and that desire is even more deeply embedded the higher the stakes are of disclosing your victimization.
Re:Happens all the time (Score:2)
Independent of the job you're doing, you've still defrauded the university if you do this. You could make a hand-waving argument about denying legit candidates the job also.
In this case, it's moot point, as the hired "PhD" was *not* doing a good job. Profs, grad students, and post-docs are hired to do research. Teaching is a secondary task that is there to ensure a continued supply of grad students. If, as the original poster reported, this person's research at the university was complete drivel, then they are worse than useless to the university (not only not producing anything, but taking up resources legitimate producers could use).
So, it's pretty much "no" on both counts.
Scientific Reputation. (Score:3)
Science requires trust to operate, he broke it, and science kicked him out of the game.
As for the title "Elements 116 and 118 are bogus", the elements aren't bogus, this just means they weren't seen that time. It would be extremely surprising if 116 and 118 didn't exist, since very well supported theories show they are there and predict some of their properties.
Ninov also discovered 112 (Ununbium) (Score:5, Interesting)
It begs the question -- is 112 bogus as well? If not, it makes you wonder why he did this, after previously discovering a new element already. One was not enough?
Re:Ununbium (Score:2)
But what were their names? (The elements, that is) (Score:2)
Even if they don't exist, they can still have names, can't they? (I know that this wouldn't be scientifically valid, but hey, we're just naming numbers.) Presumably, if they're legitmately discovered, the discoverer gets to name them, but until then, we need placeholders.
I say we name them! How about fraudium and forgium? Worldcomium? Enronium? Coldfusigen? (Of course, we need to draw on more languages than English.)
"Strange" names for elements (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Strange" names for elements (Score:3, Interesting)
More info on the naming issue [quinion.com], and here. [lanl.gov]
The Scientific Method and Peer Review Worked (Score:5, Insightful)
In this particular case, one person lied. Not people, one person, and there was no coverup. Quite the contrary. Despite the fact that some basic check-and-balance procedures were not followed (designed to avoid emberrassment, as there will always be external peer review on this sort of thing as a matter of course), the standard peer review uncovered the fraud when other scientists couldn't duplicate the findings. It is all about checks and balances, whether you are talking about science, politics, engineering, or jurisprudence. Take away your checks and balances and things will go awry
I only wish more people in our society were aware of this basic and very important fact. It is what allows science to function and progress, and it is what allows our democracy to function despite personal corruption. Anytime anyone suggests a "reform" or change, in policy or procedure, that in some way diminishes the checks and balances that are in place *cough* ceeding unprecendented powers to the FBI *cough*, like not doing "the most elemenary checks and data archiving" suspicions should be raised, significantly.
However, in this case peer review and the usual checks and balances did in fact ferret out the fraud and make it known rather quickly. I think this demonstrates that, while individual scientists are certainly capable of misconduct, the scientific method and peer review regime we have works pretty well, and is quite trustworthy.
Guys guys! (Score:2)
Figures (Score:2)
I wish they'd use another word (Score:2)
I mean in theory any atom with any integer number of protons CAN exist for some period of time greater than Planck time, I just wish they'd say "created an atom of..." or "synthesized in the lab" rather than "discovered". It just seems kind of misleading. If someone comes up with a truly new way to combine various chemicals to do something, you can say they "discovered" it, because it's not like anyone could have predicted that exact process would exist... but on the periodic table, taking the highest element that has been shown to exist at some point, and then adding one to it, doesn't seem like much of a "discovery".
Maybe I'm just nitpicking...
Darn (Score:2)
What now? (Score:2)
Element Naming (Score:3, Funny)
"Fibbium" and "Bogusium"
I feel I should reply... (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you care to comment further? (Score:2, Interesting)
It has been suggested here that Victor Ninov is being made into a scapegoat.
Facts that you might be able to confirm or deny:
The Physical Review Letter was submitted when Victor Ninov was away for a few weeks.
He was furious because he didn't think the data was ready yet. (Implication from my colleague; not all the checks had been performed yet; if they had been the original announcement might never have been made. Colleague saw him at a conference not long after the paper submission.)
The paper was published based on the earliest analysis of the data. (I guess you've already half-confirmed this one.)
People here have said that although it's clear some data was faked, it is *not* clear why or when. They see no motive for faking the original data, prior to the first publication. (We're talking about a field where the truth will out, sooner or later; one success should be followed within a year or two by someone else's confirmation. Even if that weren't the case, sooner or later false results get detected and replaced. It takes a lot of time, discussion, work, etc, to determine a) that something is wrong, b) which something is wrong, and c) why, but it happens. (I've recently been involved in exposing the limitations of a particular experimental method.)) It is suggested that the false data may have been inserted after the appearance of the PRL paper, when re-examination of the original data failed to return the 118 decay chains.
And if *that* is the case, then it could all be a terrible mistake. Because I *can* imagine inserting a few events into a copy of the run data, just to make sure that the data mining was working as it should. Indeed, if results were disappearing on me, I probably *would* make such a set of test data. Would I label it t for test, f for fake, a for artificial? Actually, I personally tend to long filenames, but that's because I've learned from experienced programmers and I've seen the confusion that can arise when single letter codes are used.
My point is that although one individual would know a set of data was faked, they might not realise that others in their group were doing datamining on the wrong files. Was data faked to test the analysis procedures? Or to cover someone's tails after the PRL publication came out? I'd suggest 'go over the logbooks' but combining computer analysis and handwritten logbooks requires a certain discipline that is rarely rewarded. Experiments are recorded in exhaustive detail - analysis often is recorded in patches. Why write down new filenames every half hour? And even if you think you've recorded what you've done, why, and where you plan on going next, you can find your own logbooks uninformative. So there's only a moderate chance that they'll reveal the whole story (I expect people have already reviewed them anyway.)
I don't know. Ninov might be the one copping the flak because someone didn't like him. I met him at a conference in Australia about 18 months ago. He listened to my presentation, then asked why I didn't talk about some things and tried to explain to me that there was something wrong with my research. Being a student listening to a bigwig, I tried to get what he was on about. When we started the third round of the conversational loop, I gave up. He did the same thing to my supervisors - they had to tell him "shut up and let us finish explaining" three times before he *did* listen, and then admitted they were right. Being swift to imagine flaws in data or method is a good trait in a scientist. Combining that with being slow to listen probably *would* make you enemies.
Rachel
And in later news..... (Score:2)
Berkeley admitted that gold does not exist either. It was all nothing more than bronzed lead that was sprinkled into rivers and streams to build some hype and interest.
"Boy is your girlfriend gonna be pissed", was heard just outside of a downtown jewerly store.
Don't tell me.. (Score:3, Funny)
fine line between inspiration and fabrication (Score:2, Informative)
i'm not going to say with a straight face that what millikan did is the same as what this guy did. i'm just noting that these are two points on a behavioral continuum also known as "the slippery slope".
this guy had already discovered one element. he probably truly thought these other two elements were right there and if didn't hurry up and find them, somebody else would, and if he was right, what's the difference? he knew what the data should look like.
the lesson: peer review exists for a reason.
-- p
and in different news... (Score:4, Informative)
What it tells us is that no scientific result is credible until it has been independently replicated by others.
What is so depressing about these cases of fraud is that they discourage the replication of interesting but implausible results: if fraud is common, people aren't going to spend time and money on things that may be fraudulent. That is why this kind of thing really hurts science.
This Just in (Score:2)
We now bring you to our correspondent who is on the eckkackkk kuhcc
Who says university isn't a business? (Score:2, Interesting)
Seeing most universities are businesses these days
why should we expect the to behave any differently
to any other business? Money and emphasis on growth is the all important thing that every entity must strive for. Lying and misrepresentation are something that a business does every day in order to attract investors, students, customers and employees. Why not lie about your research prowess too?
old (Score:2)
I knew it right away... (Score:2)
Newsflash: Microsoft claims to "own" Carbon.. (Score:2, Funny)
It makes it so that Microsoft owns everyone, BUT they are only going to charge 1/1000c per year to use each carbon atom. This means that each person only owes a million or so a year. This also helps them control the judges, as they can now technically "own" them too.
A smaller note: now they can sue apple for using the name "carbon" for their OS products.
Re:Newsflash: Microsoft claims to "own" Carbon.. (Score:2)
Fortunately, God has come forward with "prior art" on the carbon atom, but declined to testify, citing the immediate death of any present.
Re:bad news for science? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bad news for science? (Score:2)
How on EARTH does science need credibility? Shit, even the missionaries wouldn't have been able to cross the water and do their (stupid/arrogant) thing without science. Anyone even reading this story is using something that relies on more than 1000 years of disiplined, reproducable science in order to function.
People can be irrational. End of story. It's not about building a stronger case for any particular ideology, its about dispelling and eradicating irrationality, IMHO.
Re:bad news for science? (Score:4, Insightful)
In June 1999, scientists at Berkeley discovered 2 new elements.
The scientists and other members of the scientific community attempted to reproduce these elements.
They couldn't.
In July 2001, Berkeley's claims were retracted.
So what if it turns out that one scientist or a group of scientists did something wrong? The point here is that they didn't get away with it. The scientific process is WORKING.
IMHO, of course.
Re:bad news for science? (Score:2)
Let's avoid debate over the question of whether or not Joe Sixpack has "faith" in "Science"; I simply think no-one will have "faith" in an organization involved in a coverup. Announcing the error is all that can be done.
Covering it up is how crap like Enron and Worldcom happen in the first place.
Re:Whats the largest stable atom? (Score:2)
The existence of this stable element that your talking about has been theorised for a long time, but has never been observed or created in the lab. These guys that the story is talking about said they had found it, but actually didn't.
As far as experimental evidence goes, the largest completely stable atom is lead. The most stable atom (ie: the one requiring the most energy to upset) is iron.
Re:Don't blink (Score:2)
One goal of the research is to eventually find or produce high-mass radio isotopes that will provide more energy and have less residue than exisiting nuclear fuels. At the moment, we're putting a heal of a lot more energy into the creation of these isotopes than we're getting out of them, but if we learn more we might learn how to get a break-even or a profitable reaction.
It's entirely possible that element 119, which will theoretically be an alkali metal with properties similar to cesium, will have a half life long enough to allow it to take place in non-nuclear chemical reactions.
Also of interest is the confirmation of the shape of electron orbitals at higher atomic masses. You've noticed the stair step pattern of the periodic table no doubt? If you insert the lanthanides and actinides between columns 3 and 4 of the period table, where they belong, the effect becomes even more noticable. This is a reflection of the way that electrons bind to nucleii in atoms. Each 'stair step' represents a new electron orbital which can contain a specific number of electrons. These get larger and more complex as the number of electrons in an atom rise.
Re:Don't blink (Score:2)
Probably more likely it will resemble Francium.
Re:Coincidentally... (Score:2)
Created by a patented process known as "Microsoft fusion".