[mrtksn]

It appears that the development and the consequent publication was driven by vanity, that is the researchers really really wanted to claim the glory for their invention.

Why I say this? The events of publishing, retracting and re-publishing the original paper happen over drama among the people involved with the discovery.

It also appears that that the development wasn't a smooth sail as would a conspiracy may theorists like to describe technological innovations. They had hard dime finding funding and people who believe in them, so having this great epiphany in 1999 then working with the governments to develop it is not a realistic scenario at all. Instead, they grinded for 2 decades and finally got something good enough to show for. Even then, their discovery is still under heavy scrutiny and it might turn out to be a dud(Although, at this point I would bet that they are onto something real).

Here is a thread on the history of the development of the substance: https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1685641634892128256

[michaelt]

> It appears that the development and the consequent publication was driven by vanity, that is the researchers really really wanted to claim the glory for their invention.

Or it's just public science funding working as it's supposed to - scientists with high-impact findings get rewarded with citations, prizes, tenure and further research funding.

To me it's no mystery why an academic researcher would want to publicise findings like this - I'm surprised they didn't rush to publish it 20 years ago!