In this universe there are long life humans that don't really collaborate with other humans (like a single person, not a group of quasi immortal humans) in the scientific field to have all the credit because who cares if you take 200 years for a discovery if the glory is all yours
It could be the main theme in one, and then just a short thing in many others; or the main theme in a few.
It's less visible, but at this scale there's a high cost in everyone pausing their research to replicate LK-99. If it turns out to be real that's worth, but if not it could've gone to better use. Think of what we could've done with the time we spent reproducing cold fusion.
It's survivorship bias; yes, you would love to see the significant discoveries happen sooner, but if they were rushed you'd also see a lot of trash that currently never leaves the draft stage. Just look at how many people complained that the LK-99 papers were incomplete and unprofessional!
Also, LK-99 was discovered in 1999 but wasn't known as a room-temperature superconductor then. There are too many things to research and not enough researchers, so it was put on hold for two decades.
This is a (I feel rudimentarily obvious) fallacy of finite time implying there is N researchers working on one thing that must be useful at any given time. The individuals reproducing cold fusion / LK-99 / whichever might not have been spending their energy / time / funding on anything more "guaranteed productive" (nor even on anything at all) otherwise.
Knowledge motivates research. That motivating is not a classsically scarce resource, its multiplicative.
Was there anything in 1999 about the material that made it notable as a discovery then?
As if researcher must drop everything they're doing and attempt to reproduce every wild claim. It simply doesn't happen because these people are able to work through hypotheticals and form value predictions... Just like they do with any other research resource allocation decision.
No, it's far worse to lock up knowledge behind academic institutional norms and hide and yell "rigor" when anyone is curious to see what's being worked on. People can decide for themselves what is worth pursuing and the OP is likely correct that we're doing damage to our own progress by not disseminating a hypothesis that's being worked on but could use more resources. Furthermore this fear of someone publishing before you in a race to claim the Nobel prize likely doesn't help.
The institutions should formalize and normalize a method for broad open access to research in progress and broader collaboration.
This goes double for government-funded research, which the overwhelming majority of basic science research is.
In some ways this is pure science. Multiple groups working on the same thing increases the chance of searching the problem space thoroughly, and not missing out on finding better local maximas.
Less visible? More like invisible if you ask me. There's all sorts of seemingly frivolous research going on at any given moment. A red herring in this case would be no different.
The instant strange behavior becomes apparent it becomes worth researching. I don't see how keeping it silent is anything other than a tragic waste.
If it's bogus, we discover that sooner.
If it's legitimate, we discover that sooner, AND the benefits to humanity can begin 24 years earlier. Think of how much we've accomplished in the last 24 years. Now think of how many benefits could have been reaped during that time by building on this new knowledge (assuming it has practical applications).
If it's truly useful and they knew this 24 years ago: what a waste.
The people deciding to pause their research are experts with their own agency. If they are pausing their own research then it's because they've made an expert determination that it's worth doing so. So you don't need to worry yourself over it. Open the information up so that other experts can decide what to do with it.
https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1685294623449874432
With the anti-hype hype that surrounds this discovery this was to be expected. Why would I disclose this kind of research to the public so that the whole world can benefit from it when I'm called a fraudster or a liar. Why would I risk my reputation – no matter how I spin my research – in a sacrificial circle jerk when I can work on it stealthily and hope to make some bucks ?
Maybe not worth losing 20 years ... i don't know
