Should There be Public Funding of LENR Research? [Update: Rossi Says Why Not]

It has been interesting to look at some of the recent comments on the Journal of Nuclear Physics where readers are discussing the public funding of LENR. Most commenters seem to be in favor of putting taxpayer money into the LENR research, citing examples of public funding for fundamental research, space programs and the nuclear industry as a way to boost research and development in areas that can promote the public good.

Andrea Rossi, however is decidedly against the idea. Some of his comments on the subject:

I am totally contrary to public funding of LENR. It is a high risk field, that must be funded by enterpreneurs, not by taxpayers. Taxpayers must not be exposed to industrial risks.

Yes, I agree about public funding of basic and foundamental research: without it the CERN could not exist. But the case of LENR is totally different.

Yes, the cases you cited are right [space programs, nuclear industry], but LENR are a totally different thing.

Maybe Rossi is thinking that because there is so little consensus among researchers about the theoretical basis for LENR that there could be a lot of wasted money expended in barking up the wrong theoretical tree. Perhaps that will all changed once there is an accepted theory for LENR.

Rossi has made it a matter of pride that he has never taken any government funding for the development of the E-Cat and has often said that he does not believe in taking the money of small investors to support his work. I think he values his independence, and probably does not want to be in a position to be accused of squandering the public’s money if things should go awry.

But I would imagine that if the value of LENR becomes widely recognized and seen to be a technology that has much potential to serve the public good, there will be people pushing for state-funded research and development — and likely even state-supported industrialization of LENR products.

UPDATE (July 15, 2014) This a post from Andrea Rossi today explaining why he is opposed to public funding:

Daniel De Caluwè:
If a LENR system works, it does not need public funding. If anything that works well needs funding, money arrives from investors. Think to Microsoft, Apple, etc. There are things that need public funding because they are important but do not produce profit, or the perspective of profits are too much distant in time to make them appealing for capital investments; in those cases is necessary that governments make funding: for example CERN, the conquer of Space, things like these. But it is not the case of LENR.
This is my opinion, obviously it can be wrong.
Warm Regards,

  • Bernie777

    Right, FedEx and UPS have lobbied themselves into huge profits. Four of the top men at FedEx make 35 million a year!!!

  • Bernie777

    You do not believe in the free market? The free market is all about voting for your own economic interests

  • Ophelia Rump

    Their Elders will run before me shouting heretic, unable to defend themselves from my onslaught of insights and truths. I have been shouted at “blasphemer” before. There is no defense against the way of truth and light.

  • Ophelia Rump

    That is really interesting, It is Christian, Buddhist and Hindu, all three. Do a web search but replace Life with Light.

    Use these sets of search terms. You will find that there is some relationship here which is not described very well.

    Buddhist way truth light

    Hindu way truth light

    Christian way truth light

    Christain way truth life

    During the period of his life between being the Christ Child and returning from his education, where did he go and who did he study with?

    I have read one account of a group called the Traveler Kings, who it is said encompassed all three religions, wealthy men would give up their wealth to the organization and travel the world for the group.

    Supposedly the origin of the three wise men story. I have only come across the one reference so I have no idea of it’s validity.

  • Bernie777

    Ask UPS to deliver your next letter for under 50 cents.

  • Private Citizen

    When FDR instituted SS, the tax was a mere 1% of income on only the upper 1% bracket, and the retirement age exceeded average life expectancy.

    • Bernie777

      The SS system was designed as a “social security” system to insure as long as you lived you would live in dignity. In its 80 year history It has out lived at least ten assults on individual designed “retirement accounts” that have been devastated by our Wall Street friends.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    You have a gift for logic.