You didn't read what I said, I was being critical of Quanta's sensational and misleading headlines, I was NOT being critical of fundamental research. ' That su

You didn't read what I said, I was being critical of Quanta's sensational and misleading headlines, I was NOT being critical of fundamental research. ' That superconductivity was achieved at room temperature but at that huge pressure is hardly worth reporting as it's of no practical value whatsoever thus only interest to fundamental research.' It shouldn't be necessary for me to labor the point, but my quote above does NOT say that that I'm against fundamental research (in fact I'm very much for it and have always been so). Frankly, I'm annoyed that you can even suggest what you have said. Just because you disagree with part of what I've said does not give you the right to twist my words to mean something altogether different—something I did not say. I am very careful in what I say online and usually I labor the point by restating what I'm saying in different ways so that I'm not misinterpreted (unfortunately I did not do that here as what I was saying seemed clear enough). With respect to science reporting generally: sensational and misleading reporting by the media—often encouraged by scientist themselves to increase their changes of getting new grants, etc.—has done a great deal of damage to science and scientific research over the last five or so decades. Probably the 'best' example of this is cancer research which has turned great swathes of the public off science big-time because the enthusiastic promises of cures were never met. You only have to see how science and scientific research has dropped in importance in the eyes of the public over the last half century to know that. In other posts I've even spelt this out with examples. Moreover, I standby what I said, this research into superconductors is so exotic that it is of little practical value now. I am not saying that it won't be value in the future (only time will tell if it will).