NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/sci/research/1062

Text File | 1992-09-08 | 3.6 KB | 68 lines

Newsgroups: sci.research
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!ariel.lerc.nasa.gov!ecaxron
From: [e-mail] (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.lerc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date:  5 Sep 1992 14:40 EST
Lines: 54

In article <[e-mail]>,
     [e-mail] (Derrick C. Mancini) writes...

>I want only to add that I know from personal experience that such type
>of events are becoming only to common in academia.  I, too, was asked to
>include names on a paper I was to present at a conference by request of
>my supervisor.  Not only had they not contributed, but even inhibited the
>work for their own ends at the time.  However, they were a possible source
>of funding for my supervisor.

This brings up a pertinent question: were they a source of funding for *you*?

IMPO, if they were, it is not that big a deal to include representative names
as co-authors.  Here's why: (1) Most of us are not dedicated enough to "pure"
research to continue said research on our own time, unfunded, and with only
what resources we can scare up.  We often need a "rainmaker" to stay in
business.  (Of course, if that rainmaker is an organization, we can always
simply acknowledge the organization.)  (2) If certain individuals *do* fund
your work, and they do it for any reasons other than "we have money to use
before the end of our fiscal year," for instance, if they *listened* during
your pitch about the work, then they are showing not only deep pockets, but
an empathy toward you and your feelings that the work is needed.  (3) The
work, when successfully completed and published, is made known through not
only your chain of command, but theirs as well - establishing potential
contacts for follow-on work down the road.

Finally, you still publish the work with your name listed as principal
author, indicating that you are the one people must contact with questions.
And you go to the conference and get the "attaboys" there, and you are the
one who gets your picture in the journal.

>Finally it came down to my supervisor saying
>I either included thequestionable authorship or I did not publish the
>results.  I chose the latter in the end.  I made it clear that I considered
>it an ethical problem, and in part feel my supervisor no longer was supportive
>of my work because I had apparently questioned his ethics.  What disappointed
>me most is that he could not acknowledge at least some doubts about such
>behavior, maintaining it was the norm.  Just felt I had to let people know
>others do experience the negative effects of the current climate in science.

The "current climate in science" is that no-one (by and large) does their
research in their garage, or in any other vacuum.  If others share their
wealth with you, is it asking too much to give some back?

The only disclaimer I will add to this is that I have trouble with sharing
what little glory I may earn with Senior Management, if they only sign my
paycheck and show no other concern, support or empathy until the work is to
be published.  At least let me go to bat for myself and justify the work,
and let me keep them posted on how its going.  You never know in what other
ways the boss can help you as you go along.

RG

"Babe Ruth should never have given up pitching."  -  Tris Speaker, 1921