Editing Bubble fusion (section)

== Doubts prompt investigation ==
Doubts among Purdue University's Nuclear Engineering faculty as to whether the positive results reported from sonofusion experiments conducted there were truthful prompted the university to initiate a review of the research, conducted by Purdue's Office of the Vice President for Research. In a March 9, 2006 article entitled "Evidence for bubble fusion called into question", ''Nature'' interviewed several of Taleyarkhan's colleagues who suspected something was amiss.<ref name="Reich-2006-03-09">{{cite journal
  |last    = Samuel Reich
  |first   = Eugenie
  |date    = 9 March 2006
  |title   = Evidence for bubble fusion called into question
  |journal = Nature
  |volume  = 440
  |issue   = 7081
  |doi     = 10.1038/440132b
  | page = 132
  |pmid    = 16525429
  |bibcode = 2006Natur.440..132R |doi-access= free
  }}</ref>

On February 7, 2007, the Purdue University administration determined that "the evidence does not support the allegations of research misconduct and that no further investigation of the allegations is warranted". Their report also stated that "vigorous, open debate of the scientific merits of this new technology is the most appropriate focus going forward."<ref name="Purdue-2007-02-07">{{cite news
  |url = http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070207BennettTaleyarkhan.html
  |title = Purdue integrity panel completes research inquiry
  |work = Purdue News
  |publisher = [[Purdue University]]
  |date = 7 February 2007
  |access-date = 2007-05-13
  |archive-date = 2007-05-02
  |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070502174424/http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070207BennettTaleyarkhan.html
  |url-status = dead
  }}</ref><ref name="Chang-murky">{{cite news
  |first = Kenneth
  |last  = Chang
  |url   = https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/science/13purd.html
  |title = Researcher Cleared of Misconduct, but Case Is Still Murky
  |work  = [[The New York Times]]
  |edition = Late Edition (Final)
  |page  = F–4
  |date  = February 13, 2007
  |access-date = 2007-05-13
}}</ref> In order to verify that the investigation was properly conducted, [[United States House of Representatives|House Representative]] [[Brad Miller (congressman)|Brad Miller]] requested full copies of its documents and reports by March 30, 2007.<ref name="HCST-2007-03-22">{{cite web
  |title = Miller Seeks Data on Purdue Investigation Into Scientific Misconduct
  |url = http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1734
  |publisher = House Committee on Science and Technology
  |date = 22 March 2007
  |access-date = 2007-05-13
  |url-status = dead
  |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070525172515/http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1734
  |archive-date = 25 May 2007
  }}</ref> His congressional report concluded that "Purdue deviated from its own procedures in investigating this case and did not conduct a thorough investigation"; in response, Purdue announced that it would re-open its investigation.<ref>{{citation
 |title = Sonofusion back on the firing line as misconduct probe reopens
 |journal = [[Science (magazine)|Science]]
 |date = May 18, 2007 |author= Service, Robert F.
 |volume = 316
 |issue= 5827
 |page = 964
 |doi = 10.1126/science.316.5827.964
 |pmid = 17510329
 |s2cid = 12048198
 |url = http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-164637440.html
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160410061256/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-164637440.html
|url-status = dead
|archive-date = April 10, 2016
}} (registration required)</ref>

In June 2008, a multi-institutional team including Taleyarkhan published a paper in Nuclear Engineering and Design to "clear up misconceptions generated by a webposting of UCLA which served as the basis for the ''Nature'' article of March 2006", according to a press release.<ref>{{cite journal
  |last1    = Taleyarkhan
  |first1   = R.P.
  |date    = June 2008
  |title   = Modeling, Analysis and Prediction of Neutron Emission Spectra From Acoustic Cavitation Bubble Fusion Experiments
  |journal = Nuclear Engineering and Design
  |volume  = 2008
  |issue   = 238
  |doi     = 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2008.06.007
  | pages = 2779–2791
  |last2    = Lapinskas
  |first2    = J
  |last3    = Xu
  |first3    = Y
  |last4    = Cho
  |first4    = J
  |last5    = Block
  |first5    = R
  |last6    = Laheyjr
  |first6    = R
  |last7    = Nigmatulin
  |first7    = R
}}</ref>

On July 18, 2008, Purdue University announced that a committee with members from five institutions had investigated 12 allegations of research misconduct against Rusi Taleyarkhan.  It concluded that two allegations were founded—that Taleyarkhan had claimed independent confirmation of his work when in reality the apparent confirmations were done by Taleyarkhan's former students and was not as "independent" as Taleyarkhan implied, and that Taleyarkhan had included a colleague's name on one of his papers who had not actually been involved in the research ("the sole apparent motivation for the addition of Mr. Bugg was a desire to overcome a reviewer's criticism", the report concluded).<ref name="report2008">{{cite web
  |title = Report of the Investigation Committee In the Matter of Dr. Rusi P. Taleyarkhan
  |url = http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008b/080718PurdueReport.pdf
  |publisher = Purdue University
  |date = 18 April 2008
  |access-date = 2008-07-19
  |archive-date = 2008-08-20
  |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080820134655/http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008b/080718PurdueReport.pdf
  |url-status = dead
  }}</ref><ref>{{cite web
  |title = Purdue committee completes research misconduct investigation
  |url = http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008b/080718BennettTaleyarkhan.html
  |publisher = Purdue University
  |date = 18 July 2008
  |access-date = 2008-07-18
  |archive-date = 2008-07-21
  |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080721052421/http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008b/080718BennettTaleyarkhan.html
  |url-status = dead
  }}</ref>

Taleyarkhan's appeal of the report's conclusions was rejected.  He said the two allegations of misconduct were trivial administrative issues and had nothing to do with the discovery of bubble nuclear fusion or the underlying science, and that "all allegations of fraud and fabrication have been dismissed as invalid and without merit — thereby supporting the underlying science and experimental data as being on solid ground".<ref name="Nature_India_2008">{{cite journal
  | first = K. S.
  | last  = Jayaraman
  | title = Bubble fusion discoverer says his science is vindicated
  | journal = [[Nature India]]
  | doi = 10.1038/nindia.2008.271
  | year = 2008
  }}</ref> A researcher questioned by the LA Times said that the report had not clarified whether bubble fusion was real or not, but that the low quality of the papers and the doubts cast by the report had destroyed Taleyarkhan's credibility with the scientific community.<ref name="latimes">[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-misconduct19-2008jul19,0,1765099.story Purdue physicist found guilty of misconduct], Los Angeles Times, July 19, 2008, Thomas H. Maugh II</ref>

On August 27, 2008, he was stripped of his named Arden Bement Jr. Professorship, and forbidden to be a thesis advisor for graduate students for at least the next 3 years.<ref name="Nature_India_2008"/><ref name="SFC">{{cite news
  | agency=Associated Press
  | url   = https://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-08-27-purdue-scientist_N.htm
  | title = Purdue reprimands fusion scientist for misconduct
  | work=USA Today
  | date  = August 27, 2008
  | access-date = 2010-12-28
  }}</ref>

Despite the findings against him, Taleyarkhan received a $185,000 grant from the [[National Science Foundation]]  between September 2008 and August 2009 to investigate bubble fusion. In 2009 the Office of Naval Research debarred him for 28 months, until September 2011, from receiving U.S. Federal Funding. During that period his name was listed in the 'Excluded Parties List' to prevent him from receiving further grants from any government agency.<ref name=reich>{{cite magazine |author= Reich, Eugenie Samuel |title= Bubble-fusion scientist debarred from federal funding |magazine=[[Nature (magazine)|Nature]] |date= 23 November 2009 |doi= 10.1038/news.2009.1103 }}</ref>