[Reading Science] The Truly Strange Appearance of LK99

Over the past three weeks, scientists worldwide have raced to find the "holy grail of physics." At the end of last month, a domestic venture, the Quantum Energy Research Institute, claimed to have developed a material called "LK-99," which they asserted to be a room-temperature, ambient-pressure superconductor. This sparked a global wave of verification efforts. Room-temperature, ambient-pressure superconductors exhibit zero electrical resistance, magnetic field repulsion, and position fixation properties. Such materials could trigger revolutions in energy and materials science. Coinciding with the era of "global tropicalization" rather than just global warming, there was a desperate yearning for scientific technologies to save humanity. Online, scientific discussions on superconductors became unprecedentedly active. Leading research institutions worldwide engaged in verification, producing a flood of related reports, creating an academic frenzy. Unfortunately, so far, only negative results have been reported. Domestic verification has been delayed due to difficulties in obtaining materials, but negative opinions prevail.

What is noteworthy is that this "holy grail search" race has unfolded in a very unusual manner. Discussions about major scientific discoveries are not taking place in academic forums such as seminars or journals but rather on the internet and stock markets. The initial hype, subsequent recognition of "credibility," and the reversal of the theme stock's sharp decline were all driven by online and social networking service (SNS) messages.

The most peculiar aspect is the attitude of the research institute itself. Instead of providing detailed explanations, they neither communicate with the domestic academic community nor the media and are not cooperating with verification efforts. The domestic academic community believes that the most accurate and rapid verification is necessary to prevent social confusion. They argue that cross-verification between samples produced by the institute and those reproduced by other research teams must be conducted urgently. However, most scholars do not know the institute's personnel well and cannot contact them. The Korean Superconductivity and Cryogenics Society, which undertook verification, reportedly exchanged only one email with the institute. The institute has only stated to the media that they will announce their position "in a month."

However, it appears they are communicating with foreign experts. Communication with Virpal Singh Awana, a researcher at the National Physical Laboratory of India, has been confirmed. Professor Awana was the first in the world to fail to reproduce LK-99 earlier this month and announced experimental results stating it is "not a superconductor." On the 10th, Professor Awana suddenly changed his stance, posting on social media (SNS) that "LK-99 is still hopeful. We are still researching. Cooper pairs at room temperature," along with a video. He also gave an interview to a domestic media outlet, stating that he received advice from Lee Seok-bae, the institute's director, and Kim Hyun-tak, a professor at William & Mary University in the U.S., and confirmed the possibility. The problem is the timing was peculiar, and he soon reversed his statement again. Immediately after Awana's SNS message, theme stocks, which had been plummeting due to successive negative reproduction results from foreign research institutions, rose again. The day after his statement, he reversed his position, saying, "(LK-99) is a complex magnetic material but not a superconductor."

Of course, it is not yet concluded that the development of LK-99 itself is false. As is common with states and corporations protecting secrets, if the institute included fake data in their paper, there could be a turnaround. The institute's official statement and the academic community's official verification results are being closely watched. However, regardless of the truth of any significant scientific discovery, it is undesirable for it to have a major social impact without objective verification procedures as in this case. Haven't we already experienced the unprecedented collapse of research ethics in the "Hwang Woo-suk incident" 20 years ago?