Abstract
This paper considers the problem of how to account for the observation of research on cold fusion (CF) after the apparent closure of the controversy in 1990. Despite `losing the controversy', hundreds of scientists around the world continue to work on CF. The issue of whether the controversy is in fact closed and CF is `dead', or whether it is still `alive', is considered, and this dualism is rejected in favour of a hybrid category: CF is `undead'. Researchers continue to do scientific work, but that work is configured by the experience of having `lost' the controversy in 1989-90. Consequently, CF is `alive', but it is not scientific life as we, in science studies, typically understand it.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.