While I do not know the specific details relating to what happened at LBL nor do I understand the circumstances why the co-authors signed their names to the paper, I can attest to Dr. Walt Loveland’s character and professionalism (a co-author). He is a Nuclear Chemist that has been in the forefront in the search for superheavy elements for a number of years and is intimately involved in describing reaction mechanisms between nuclei. Dr. Loveland is a person that leaves no stone unturned and is painstakingly thorough in his analytical work. There is no doubt in my mind that he would not have signed the paper if there had been the slightest indication of unreliability in the computer program, fraud, or human or other error.
Brian Keele, CHP
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:33:54 -0500
From: "Strickert, Rick" <rstrickert@signaturescience.com>
Subject: RE: Berkeley lab found research fabricated
Ruth Weiner wrote:
> 2. Was this deliberate "fabrication" or a false positive result enhanced by
preliminary hype?
The 2001 retraction submitted to Physical Review Letters is at an Oregon State
Univeristy web page http!
://www.orst.edu/dept/nchem/menu/prog01.htm#2a
According to a more detailed explanation following the retraction statement, one
of the co-authors, Walter Loveland, notes that Victor Ninov was "the person
responsible for the primary data analysis" for both experiments.
The web site provides details of the stages of analyses that were performed. At
the time, Loveland also states, "C!
ontinuing investigations focus on whether a
'buggy' computer program, human error or scientific fraud is responsible for
these results."
The recent news reports indicate that LBL officials have concluded it was the
latter.
Rick Strickert
Austin, TX