if someone had actually discovered a room temperature, ambient pressure superconductor, their notes would be meticulous and precise, they would have replicated their results multiple times before publishing anything at all, and they’d already be lining up untold scores of investors.
I’m a materials science layperson but not a science layperson … I’ve got some experience in scientific research.
And, IMO, you’re overestimating scientists here or casting a pretty idealised picture of how research and breakthroughs happen. Which, I think, was precisely part of the appeal of this story, the messiness of it and the possibility that, however foggy the truth was and all the hype aside, there was something interesting going on.
For example, for me, and I hope the general public, I think there’ll be an interesting story in how this whole thing happened. The public image of science is way too idealised and consumeristic (where people want to consume “finalised results” and hype rather than scientific process and curiosity) … instead it’d be nice to hear about how a group of researchers got too excited, or why they made fundamental errors … and why did certain people around the world get excited and try to replicate it? What’s the story behind the material itself? Why did the researchers pursue it and what did they see in the material (on which there does seem to be an interesting story about theories from soviet scientists that the west ignore)? Beyond all of that, given the simulation results … is there anything to be taken from the material for future research?