Purdue released a statement confirming a New York Times story that the university has reopened the investigation of possible misconduct by professor Rusi P. Taleyarkhan. The new inquiry, launched at the urging of a congressional subcommittee, is the latest effort to resolve allegations that Taleyarkhan used questionable methods in attempting to substantiate his claims relating to bubble fusion, also known as sonofusion.
Taleyarkhan has been at the center of a storm of controversy since 2001, when he set out to publish his findings on sonofusion while working as a researcher at the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Taleyarkhan claimed that he had succeeded in producing an energy-releasing nuclear fusion reaction by bombarding a beaker of acetone with ultrasonic pulses.
The theory behind sonofusion is that ultrasound affects liquid by producing then crushing microscopic bubbles at such a rapid rate that the resulting heat causes surrounding atoms to fuse together. Taleyarkhan's experiments involved first bombarding the acetone with neutrons, to enhance the effect of the sonic waves.
Fellow researchers at Oakridge were unable to replicate the experiment, however, and several scientists who had been invited to review Taleyarkhan's research were publicly critical of his work. However, the scientist succeeded in having his paper published by the academic journal Science in 2002. He continued his research after accepting a post on the nuclear engineering faculty of Purdue University in Indiana.
Taleyarkhan again came under fire following the publication of papers in 2005 that appeared to substantiate his claims to achieving a successful nuclear sonofusion reaction. While Taleyarkhan hailed the publications as independent confirmation of his findings, allegations were made that the subsequent experiments were conducted by researchers connected to Taleyarkhan , using Taleyarkhan's own apparatus, and that Taleyarkhan had deliberately omitted his name as a coauthor of the reports. Purdue launched an investigation, later exonerating Taleyarkhan of any wrongdoing.
Now a congressional subcommittee has intervened, calling for Purdue to reopen the investigation. The House Committee on Science and Technology's investigations and oversight subcommittee , chaired by North Carolina Democratic Congressman Brad Miller, conducted a review of Purdue's investigation and released a report that is highly critical of the university's handling of the matter.
Miller's subcommittee has cited concerns over the public funds used to support Taleyarkhan's research as the basis of its interest in the case. However, Taleyarkhan and his supporters have questioned those motives, suggesting that politics may be taking precedence over science. If Taleyarkhan's desktop experiments were verified, the existence of a low-cost method for generating vast quantities of clean energy could potentially make conventional nuclear reactors obsolete. According to the Department of Energy, Miller's home state of North Carolina ranks third in the nation for its reliance on thermonuclear reactors.
In an e-mail to the New York Times, Taleyarkhan called this latest investigation “a gross travesty of justice," and a "smear campaign" with racial undertones. He called on the "Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the Asian community" to come to his defense.
The New York Times published only a small excerpt of Taleyarkhan's e-mail denouncing the renewed investigation, and Representative Miller's letter to Purdue's administration prompting the inquiry. However, DailyTech obtained a full-text copy of the missive. It reads as follows:
>Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:24:24 -0400
>From: "Rusi P. Taleyarkhan"
>
>I am away from campus and could not respond earlier but suffice to say
>I and several of my colleagues are apalled at the note from Rep.Miller
>for it's lack of balance and single-minded fervor to posit a
>prejudicial one-sidedness. I will be able to talk with you next
>Monday if you wish but thought I'd share my views with you here. Feel
>free to contact several of my co-authors (cc'd to this message).
>
>Basically, One must question:
>
>- Why did this memo/letter from Rep. Miller's office intentionally
>omit ANY/ALL mention of the positive findings and supporting evidence
>from the many reports from Purdue Univ. committees that ultimately
>prevailed to have Purdue's peers and administrators make it's
>February,2007 decision to issue it's Press release concluding no
>misconduct and no need for further investigations? Why this
>intentional cherry-picking of points from the written reports
>specially chosen to portray a negative image? Is this the American
>system we are to follow, or is it just politics as usual? As written,
>the memo/letter essentially presents only the accusers points of view
>and passes it's verdict on the accusations.
>
>- Why did this memo/letter completely disregard the mass of
>supporting evidence / information sent to it by me separately
>(including a statement to Congress) that essentially answered all of
>the accusations being levied with vitriolic fervor?
>
>- Why is it that the same people/detractors who openly as of last
>December eagerly awaited Purdue's verdict on my work during the
>year-long reviews and examination of facts, only to then come out to
>challenge the same once the verdict was announced because the outcome
>was not what they wanted to hear? Smacks of sour-grapes and
>reminiscent of the political knee-jerk demand for a recount during
>political season.
>
>- Fundamentally, why would Purdue administration want to side with me
>rather than the accusers, one of them who was an administrator himself
>who fell from grace for his many actions totally unrelated to bubble
>fusion? In fact, I am the one who has borne the brunt of the burden
>for extraordinary proof based on which Purdue made the Feb.2007 Press
>announcement absolving me of research misconduct.
>
>- Why is it that per rules of engagement the requirements for
>confidentiality in State of Indiana's C-22 Process being selectively
>applied to me? Why is it that the illegal actions of some go
>intentionally unpunished even when they openly are defiant of the
>admonishments from the Provost and the rules we are all expected to
>abide by?
>
>- By any stretch this transmittal represents a gross travesty of
>justice. Where are the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the Asian
>community during this episode that has caused this biased and openly
>one-sided smear campaign?
>
>Rusi Taleyarkhan
Congressman Miller's March 21st letter to Purdue President Martin Jicshke, launching the subcommittee's review of the Taleyarkhan case, is also available online.