Bad Science and Imaginary Weapons

One of the books I read recently was Imaginary Weapons: A Journey Through the Pentagon's Scientific Underworld" by Sharon Weinberger. The book is a study on how the military establishment in the US, in its quest for new, deadlier weapons to stay ahead of all competition, funds fringe research ridiculed and dismissed by mainstream science. Pseudo-science backed with little and in several cases dubious rigor can capture the imagination of top military funding agencies. The prime example used in the book is the quest for devising a super weapon using a halfnium isomer that could theoretically be put inside a container the size of a hand grenade but could have more power than a conventional nuke. Moreover, it could theoretically penetrate concrete and steel making it impossible to guard against.

Musings:
The trouble with such a quest is that mainstream phyicists of repute who have researched this idea have already found it to be highly infeasible (i.e. un-doable) for several reasons - the least of which being that for such an endeavor to actually succeed would require seriously violating known laws of physics. But that somehow did not or does not deter fringe scientists from taking up this cause repeatedly, and, even more scarily, for the military establishment of the most powerful nation on the planet to continue to fund such dubious science by millions of dollars.

And just why do these scientists eagerly propose such research time and time again? Maybe, because in absence of any proper scientific funding (probably denied to them because of the dubious nature of their proposals in the first place) their only option is the generous military. Or maybe because they somehow believe strongly in the feasibility of these fringe topics, no matter how contrary known evidence is.

As a scientist myself(Hee! Hee! Still get a kick out of saying that!), all this is a good reality check that there are a lot of scientists out there who either lack scientific rigor or who somehow believe that they're better and know more than the system that produced them. Who needs equations and proofs to back one's gut feelings, right?!

But more importantly a scientist who actually craves for recognition which he or she knows that mainstream science is never going to grant them, but they're going to make a run for it one way or the other is a very dangerous one. Such people are eventually going to not only self-destruct at some point, but will also end up taking a lot of people (innocent or otherwise) with them.

Book Review:
The book itself did tend to get a little tedious (like this post), not because of all the scientific details inside but because the writer explains events, people and her interviews with them in far too much detail. A lot of the material could have been condensed and published in a major newspaper as an exposure piece.

Also, while the title says Imaginary Weapons, i.e. implying the plural, the author only really talks about the halfnium weapon in some detail. While, in the beginning of the book, the writer does allude to military funding for an acoustic weapon, i.e. one that uses sound waves to neutralize the enemy, or funding for harnessing gravity waves in some destructive fashion, she makes very little or no further mention about these other topics later on in the book. That's kind of a let-down really, because I did want to hear about other dubious projects funded by the military. However, her sarcastic, almost satirical writing style makes it easier to plod through the more weightier (read boring) topics. On the whole, informative but a slightly dissatisfying experience.

Tailpiece:
With that troubling thought of bad science and scientists in my mind, it's time to hit the textbooks again then for me - just to make sure I have all the facts right. Heh! Heh! More book reviews, observations coming up later. Textbooks won't be included, fortunately.