[daemontus]

But the thing is... except for the original authors, none of these papers so far really claim to have a room-temperature superconductor, right? They claim "simulated band structure with low Fermi level", or "unusual levels of diamagnetism", or "almost zero resistance up to -100°C (but lack of phase transition)", etc.

Yes, retracting these is still shameful, but it's not a "we found extraterrestrial life" claim. It's a "we received weird signals from a nebula that we don't understand so far" claim.

And yes, a lot of supporting but inconclusive evidence is still supporting evidence. My point is not that (most) scientists would risk lying about replicating a superconductor, but rather that uncertain or inconclusive results with a solid chunk of plausible deniability in a rapidly evolving environment go a long way towards being "in the room where it happened".

[cthalupa]

I wouldn't bet on LK99 being a RTAPS but "Replicating a bunch of weird shit that we don't really understand that at least somewhat align with the possibility" really isn't a damning position to be in when the starting point is "The team says they only get a working sample about 10% of the time and everyone else is working off of pretty meh instructions on how to replicate"

[jpambrun]

This is not my area of expertise, but as a former scientist (at least at the PhD and postdoc level) I would not stake my credibility on something without being 1000% sure on a normal day, let alone when the topic is extraterrestrial life or room temperature superconductors.

Also, it's not true at all the retraction have no consequences. It is an indelible mark of shame.