Image Credit: LAUREN PETRACCA/THE NEW YORK TIMES/REDUX
A paper on Superconductors earlier in March 2023, published in the reputed journal Nature, claimed to have created an unbelievable sounding room temperature Superconductive material. This claim drew attention of the scientific community as a material like this could basically revolutionize technology, making fast moving trains, lossless electrical grids and improving medical technology such as MRI. Many scientists mused on the possibilities that such a material could offer.
However, when scientists attempted to reproduce these results, their observations told a whole new tale. Months later, eight of the ten co-authors have submitted a letter to the journal Nature bravely speaking up asking for the paper to be retracted for flawed method. Most are students of Ranga Dias, physicist at University of Rochester and a few are his fellow colleagues.
Blockbuster Superconductor Claim
The paper claimed in March that a compound of lutetium, nitrogen, and hydrogen (LuNH) could show superconductivity at temperatures of about 21 degrees Celsius when maintained at a relatively moderate pressure of 10,000 atmospheres. The claim was a blockbuster as current ambient temperature superconductors still need to be cooled and require much higher pressure conditions.
Most of the typical superconductors need to be cooled to very low temperatures (around -262) and need cryogenics – to be maintained at these temperatures. Only at these conditions can they show “superconductivity” – conducting current with almost no loss offering basically zero resistance.
Superconductors are a key part of technology ranging from magnetic trains, medical equipment like MRI, supercomputers to particle accelerators where low resistance is crucial, such as for high power magnets. Typically these systems need cryogenics and challenging engineering constructions. A room temperature superconductor without need for cryogenics would have drastic positive impacts to such tech and exponentially improve energy efficiency.
Flawed Methods Used in Research
Two scientists anonymously wrote to Nature questioning the credibility of the paper, pointing out that the LuNH superconductor describes having performed a background subtraction which seems inconsistent as such a method would not really produce the results published. To answer this critique, Ranga Dias gave the editors at Nature an updated set of instructions. However, this updated method once again was not able to demonstrate results promised once tested. Even during the post publishing peer review process, the referees were not happy with what they were seeing as they were not getting acceptable or timely responses from the authors.
The signed letter requesting retraction said that the co authors had raised concerns pre-publication about the “clearly misleading and/or inaccurate representations in the manuscript.” Some of them were offered an ultimatum that they either keep their names or remove them from the paper, they said, “At the time, neither choice seemed tenable given that Dr. Dias was in control of our personal, academic, and financial circumstances.”
Other Allegations Against Dias
A different unrelated paper published by a 11 author team including Ranga Dias was retracted from Nature after 10 authors with the lone exclusion of Dias signed for the retraction, admitting that they were not satisfied with the methods used to obtain results. Dias however maintained that the data was accurate and blamed any errors on the illustration software used, and denied any efforts misleading a peer review process.
Also to be noted is the fact that Dias is currently under investigation from his alma mater University for allegedly plagiarizing over 20% of his PhD thesis. He has previously claimed to be “addressing these issues directly with his thesis adviser.” However, two investigations into this matter found no evidence of misconduct and a third is currently underway.
Ranga Dias is also known to send cease and desist letters to people that critique his work and has done the same to the co authors that signed the letter to Nature, warning them about “potential legal consequences of your actions and to consider the ethical implications of making baseless allegations against a colleague and fellow scientist.” The scientific community must come forward and protect these students and colleagues for being courageous and speaking up against unscientific practices.
