Editing Pathological science (section)

==Newer examples==
Since Langmuir's original talk, a number of newer examples of what appear to be pathological science have appeared. [[Denis Rousseau]], one of the main debunkers of polywater, gave an update of Langmuir in 1992, and he specifically cited as examples the cases of polywater, [[Martin Fleischmann|Martin Fleischmann's]] cold fusion and [[Jacques Benveniste|Jacques Benveniste's]] "infinite dilution".<ref>{{cite journal |title= Case Studies in Pathological Science: How the Loss of Objectivity Led to False Conclusions in Studies of Polywater, Infinite Dilution and Cold Fusion |journal= [[American Scientist]]| author-first= D. L. |author-last=Rousseau |date= January–February 1992 |volume= 80 |pages= 54–63 |author-link= D. L. Rousseau }}</ref>

===Polywater===
{{main|Polywater}}

[[Polywater]] was a form of water which appeared to have a much higher [[boiling point]] and much lower [[freezing point]] than normal water. During the 1960s, a number of articles were published on the subject, and research on polywater was done around the world with mixed results. Eventually it was determined that some of the properties of polywater could be explained by biological contamination. When more rigorous cleaning of [[Laboratory glassware|glassware]] and [[Scientific control|experimental controls]] were introduced, polywater could no longer be produced. It took several years for the concept of polywater to die in spite of the later negative results.

===Cold fusion===
{{main|Cold fusion}}

In 1989, [[Martin Fleischmann]] and [[Stanley Pons]] announced the discovery of a simple and cheap procedure to obtain room-temperature [[nuclear fusion]]. Although there were multiple instances where successful results were reported, they lacked consistency and hence cold fusion came to be considered to be an example of pathological science.<ref name=labinger>{{cite journal |title= Controversy in chemistry: how do you prove a negative?{{snd}}the cases of phlogiston and cold fusion |author1-last= Labinger |author1-first=J. A. |author2-last=Weininger |author2-first=S.J. |journal= [[Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English]]|year=2005 |volume=44 |issue=13 |pages=1916–1922 |doi=10.1002/anie.200462084 |quote= So there matters stand: no cold fusion researcher has been able to dispel the stigma of 'pathological science' by rigorously and reproducibly demonstrating effects sufficiently large to exclude the possibility of error (for example, by constructing a working power generator), nor does it seem possible to conclude unequivocally that all the apparently anomalous behavior can be attributed to error. |pmid= 15770617}}</ref> Two panels convened by the [[US Department of Energy]], one in 1989 and a second in 2004, did not recommend a dedicated federal program for cold fusion research. A small number of researchers continue working in the field.

===Water memory===
{{main|Benveniste affair|Water memory}}
Jacques Benveniste was a French [[immunologist]] who in 1988 published a paper in the prestigious scientific journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' describing the action of high dilutions of [[anti-IgE antibody]] on the [[degranulation]] of human [[basophil]]s, findings which seemed to support the concept of [[homeopathy]]. Biologists were puzzled by Benveniste's results, as only molecules of water, and no molecules of the original antibody, remained in these high dilutions. Benveniste concluded that the configuration of molecules in water was biologically active. Subsequent investigations have not supported Benveniste's findings.