The "Memory of Water" publication was quite a controversy. They claimed to get what they got and it was reviewed and it was published and most believed it was impossible. It required that water had a memory capability - a homeopath's dream and a scientist's nightmare as there was simply no evidence that such a mechanism existed (because, it didn't - at least none that is known).

At the time (although out of my field) we were all just amazed - wtf, how could that be, it's in Nature?! I remember that James Randi (the magician turned debumker whom I have always respected greatly), did a very interesting piece on bias in connection with this issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/27/us/water-that-has-a-memory-skeptics-win-second-round.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory_of_water.html

 

The "Memory of Water" publication was quite a controversy. They claimed to get what they got and it was reviewed and it was published and most believed it was impossible. It required that water had a memory capability - a homeopath's dream and a scientist's nightmare as there was simply no evidence that such a mechanism existed (because, it didn't - at least none that is known).

At the time (although out of my field) we were all just amazed - wtf, how could that be, it's in Nature?! I remember that James Randi (the magician turned debumker whom I have always respected greatly), did a very interesting piece on bias in connection with this issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/27/us/water-that-has-a-memory-skeptics-win-second-round.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory_of_water.html

This a classic conspiracy theory example from the nytimes article.

Dr. Maddox, asked by telephone if he now wished he had not published the original report, emphatically said ''no.'' He cited prolonged publication in such French newspapers as Figaro and Le Monde that the mysterious phenomenon had been observed, but was being suppressed by the ''regular journals.''

 

The "Memory of Water" publication was quite a controversy. They claimed to get what they got and it was reviewed and it was published and most believed it was impossible. It required that water had a memory capability - a homeopath's dream and a scientist's nightmare as there was simply no evidence that such a mechanism existed (because, it didn't - at least none that is known).

At the time (although out of my field) we were all just amazed - wtf, how could that be, it's in Nature?! I remember that James Randi (the magician turned debumker whom I have always respected greatly), did a very interesting piece on bias in connection with this issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/27/us/water-that-has-a-memory-skeptics-win-second-round.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory_of_water.html

Thanks for that article. I had read about said "phenomenon" but had never read a report contradicting it. Up until now I had thought that this was yet another of nature's deep mysteries... I'll now file it among the anti-vaxxers and moon-landers dossiers...

 

When I was studying chemistry full-time another very controversial discovery was "polywater" from a group of Russian investigators. It received a lot of press at the time and still gets attention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater
https://itotd.com/articles/4196/polywater/

Of course, some chickens were afraid our oceans and lakes would all be turned into polywater if any of it escaped the laboratories.

 

Thanks for that article. I had read about said "phenomenon" but had never read a report contradicting it. Up until now I had thought that this was yet another of nature's deep mysteries... I'll now file it among the anti-vaxxers and moon-landers dossiers...

In some ways, the "Memory of Water" issue is a testimony to the power of our scientific principles, including the peer-review process. Although there are some robust examples of temporary failures (In my opinion, e.g., cigarette smoking, concussion), in the end, scientific methodology produces. To be fair, the issue in this case, was not outright fraud at all, it was a question of lack of rigor and the allowance of bias - again in my opinion. I wish I had handy the investigative story by James Randi...it might have appeared in Nature as well. I think it is probably this https://www.nature.com/articles/334287a0. It was and is still, fascinating and important. The summary in Wiki, does not do it justice...

"Benveniste's team then started a second, blinded experimental series with Maddox and his team in charge of the double-blinding: notebooks were photographed, the lab videotaped, and vials juggled and secretly coded. Randi even went so far as to wrap the labels in newspaper, seal them in an envelope, and then stick them on the ceiling so Benveniste and his team could not read them.[13] The blinded experimental series showed no water memory effect."

James Randi (not a scientist) has been a real treasure as, not only can he "hang" with the most established of scientists, but he has managed to reach the masses - and that is a big deal. Do you remember these classics?

Note: I know I am getting off topic, but I get the distinct feeling that the OP was just looking for a quick link for his homework and has moved on to more pressing matters.

 

Note: I know I am getting off topic, but I get the distinct feeling that the OP was just looking for a quick link for his homework and has moved on to more pressing matters.

As I said while playing his game, I am surprised any university course would have such a meaningless assignment, unless he is an English grammar major. Even then, most newspapers provide plenty of fodder.

 

When I was studying chemistry full-time another very controversial discovery was "polywater" from a group of Russian investigators. It received a lot of press at the time and still gets attention:

I remember that one. My dad was a chemical engineer at Union Carbide back then, and they sold products for reducing water viscosity (maybe surface tension?) so that, for example, fire truck pumps could pump more water. The possible existence of polywater was a big threat/opportunity to that business group. The confusion didn't last long. I don't recall how they tested it, but it was fairly quickly dismissed.