What is causing the lack of recognition of evidence on LENR is much discussed.
Evidence shows it is not a conspiracy of military guys, nuclear energy guys, oil guys, because they all were allowed, or just ignored, to publish papers, from Amoco,Shell, BARC, LANL to EDF, CEA.
EDF was more tolerant than CEA probably because it is less academic, less Nobel expecting (fear of Nobel losses seems the greatest reason). DoD is funding LENR, and even cooperating with SRI, ENEA, japanese teams in industry... no conspiracy holds.
The theory that it is because of hot fusion budget is very credible, but I have reason not to be sure.
This recent article talk of the finally unimportant and real conspiracy by industrial on scientific questions...
finally cultural and social points are the most important.
Conspiracy By Bigs (Tobacco, Sugar Or Fats) Does Not Explain Why Science Makes Mistakes
But it is another historical perspective that I believe warrants our attention. Unlike facts, the act of doing science is a social construction “powerfully shaped by social forces and political choices.” The narrative of bad fat was based partly on evidence, subsequently amplified as scientists who studied “bad fat” became “thought leaders” influencing the distribution of NIH funding. Conflicts of interest are not merely financial; they have philosophic origins as well.
For the six years of my surgical residency and fellowship, every week we stood to confess the mistakes in judgment, fact, and technique we made. For the more than 25 years of practice, those confessions, part of a morbidity and mortality conference were done at least monthly if not more often. I have a lot of experience listening to and confessing my errors. It is hard to say you are wrong, hard to say that despite your best thinking and efforts, that your work could be better. One of the ways we often sought to deflect our embarrassment, guilt or shame was to blame another. Frequently it was the patient; they were a poor candidate for our treatment, and they didn’t cooperate with our plan. Other times, it was a fault posited upon fate and random occurrence – S**t happens.
Practicing science like practicing medicine is inherently uncertain. Medicine corrects itself with self-reflection; science corrects itself with better, more complete explanations. When your stature rises and falls upon your “contribution to current theories,” then scientists have a social conflict of interest, no different than the physician standing before their peers explaining an error they made. And like those physicians, it is sometimes easier to blame the Bigs rather than acknowledge that your work may not be as valued as we hoped.
Science is a human enterprise, constrained by human foibles. Sometimes you have to acknowledge that you're wrong or at least not wholly correct, pick yourself up and try again. Recognizing that belief may be a conflict of interest, is an important step forward. So is acknowledging that despite their, at times bad behavior, the Bigs are not to blame because of some vast conspiracy featuring willing accomplices and dupes among the scientific community.
Was there ever really a “sugar conspiracy”?
Our analysis illustrates how conspiratorial narratives in science can distort the past in the service of contemporary causes and obscure genuine uncertainty that surrounds aspects of research, impairing efforts to formulate good evidence-informed policies. In the absence of very strong evidence, there is a serious danger in interpreting the inevitable twists and turns of research and policy as the product of malevolent playbooks and historical derailments. Like scientists, historians must focus on the evidence and follow the data where they lead.
Ego, big voice, hierarchy of sciences (physics above chemistry), lasiness to change theory, is what was the most evident cause for me when I started to be interested.
The book of Charles Beaudette showed to me clearly that the nasty jokes of Lewis at Baltimore seems to be the key to that fiasco.
If there was conspiracy, it may be the no more secret conspiracy of Seaborg, which was proud of it, so not conspiring , to build a Stalinian trial against cold fusion, the ERAB panel. Il looks more like Mao Cultural Revolution, where everybody follow the flow with enthusiasm first, then not to be exterminated like birds were.
Intimations of Disaster: Glenn Seaborg, the Scientific Process, and the Origin of the “Cold Fusion War” - Eugene F. Mallove