HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Organization: Macquarie University, Australia.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:27:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.170026.1493@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.050420.8740@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au>
>wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly) writes:
>>1. "author" -- "authorship"
>>      one who writes --- he/she who has written. Period.
>>      everyone one else should be acknowledged but if they
>>       didn't help _write_ the paper, they are not 
>>       entitled to _authorship_
>
>     This is a ridiculous criterion.  Often, the person who writes the
>paper did not do all (or, in some cases any) of the science.  Should
>the people who conceived and did the work not be included in the author
>list?
>     Remember:  Only one person, or at most two, can write the paper
>(disregarding proofreading and such activities); many can participate in
>the science.
>
>				Marc R. Roussel
>                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca

My point exactly. These people "other" people are NOT the authors.

I certainly accept and agree with critisms expressed about my narrow
definition of "author."  "Authorship" does encompass more than the 
writing of a paper, it also includes the creation or ideas generated.
I maintain that in most instances this should be the same person/
persons writing the paper.

I am still convinced that it is not a good idea to recognise
contributions to the work by granting authorship...there must be
a better way!  The genasis and expression of an idea cannot attributed
to a "crowd" ... there has to be some central core to the cast of
"thousands"...we can argue what definition of "core" we should impose,
I may run to the extreme end or a very restrictive definition. I
accept that.

Cheers,
Chris
From: srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:40:03 GMT
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Aug27.205631.28434@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <714936705@pike.cs.duke.edu> srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.154754.20355@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>>
>>
>>Wouldn't it be nice if all
>>tenured faculty were also decent human beings?  
>
>What is your metric of decent human beings? Why do you think that
>_your_ metric should determine the scientific career of a junior faculty
>member ? Different people have different tastes.

Of course my metric is the only one that counts!!!  What a silly
question...  :-)   (It's a joke, son)

Seriously though, I think that a good metric is that if the person is
disruptive enough to harm the work of the other people in the department,
then they should not be granted tenure.  Of course, it might be the
case that the whole rest of the department is made up of "jerks", and
our lonely tenure-seeking person is the "decent human being".  In that
case, it might not seem fair, but a person given a guaranteed job for
life must be able to work with the group of people that are there.  If
that means they ALL have to be jerks, then so be it!


-- 
Steve Tate srt@cs.duke.edu | The reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem,
Dept. of Computer Science  | above all other sciences, is that its laws are
Duke University     | absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of all
Durham, NC  27706   | other sciences are to some extent debatable. (Einstein)
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: rnakkula@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robin J Nakkula)
Subject: Re: co-authorship (was Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:11:33 GMT

In article <21226@optima.cs.arizona.edu> debray@cs.arizona.edu (Saumya K. Debray) writes:
>
>On the flip side, I know a group where the head of the group gets his
>name on all his students' papers just because he's the head of the group.
>His credibility with me has eroded somewhat because of this.
>
>-- 
>Saumya Debray

The situation is a little different in the biological sciences: there's usually
been alot of wetlab work to go around, and a Project Investigator (i.e., head
professor) usually puts his/her name at the end of a long list of contributors,
and usually to aid in the acceptance of the work for publication (especially
when a lot of the prior names have been published, but in other journals).

@@@---Robin N.

Xref: sparky sci.research:1002 sci.med:16640
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Was Fabrikant a big pain?
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:19:37 GMT

In article <6070003@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> alexa@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alexander Anger) writes:
>
>By the way, isn't anybody intrigued by the symbolism hidden in
>these kinds of cases?  "Fabrikant" means "someone who fabricates"
>or "someone who creates" in German.  Just thought I'd add a
>little mysticism to this otherwise crazy, surrealistic (I wish)
>world.
>

You know, that exactly was one of my first thoughts when I received his
messages, and I thought the whole thing was a hoax. But I then recalled 
that many years ago I knew a guy of Russian decent with this name. 

Dov
From: JRBANGA@poppy.ucdavis.edu (JULIO RODRIGUEZ BANGA)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:57:04 GMT
Organization: University of California, Davis
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20


 I can't believe it. I read Dr Fabrikant's postings yesterday. Last night,
while having dinner, I saw in the News what we already know it happened. At 
first, I thought he could be other scientist, but this morning I've 
discovered he wasn't.

 So I guess that Dr Fabrikant, a well known and outstanding researcher, is
going to jail for killing two of his colleagues. I don't have enough data to 
be sure if everything in Dr. Fabrikant's postings was true. However, I must 
say that the description he gave of his bosses is quite familiar to me (though
 I have NOT suffered a situation like that myself) and, I think, for many 
scientists around the world.

 That is, I have friends in certain universities who have suffered or are
suffering exploitation of the same type as the one related by Dr. Fabrikant.
How frequent is this situation? What is happening to ethics in science? 

 Peer review is supposed to assure a minimum of scientific level in
publications. Maybe it's time that referees should also find out who is (are)
the real author(s) of a paper before it is published.

   Any comments?


 Julio.
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: sriram@romulus.cray.com (Sriram Vajapeyam)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Date: 29 Aug 92 10:22:05 CDT

In article <hpry3lk@rpi.edu> maniattb@cs.rpi.edu (Bill Maniatty) writes:

>In article <DASU.92Aug28183543@sscux1.ssc.gov>, dasu@sscux1.ssc.gov (Sridhara Dasu) writes:

>|> I think that there is too much fuss in the academia about the authorship
>|> etc. How does it matter whose name is listed and in what order? For most
>|> readers of the article it is the content that matters, and when they
>|> refer to that work one wants others to be able to relocate the article.
>	[more stuff deleted]
>|> 
>|> 				- Sridhara Dasu
>|> 
>	I suspect that many places of employment prefer scientists with active
>research interests.  The problem lies in the fact that publication and
>citation counts are used as metrics for hiring and promotion purposes.
>Employers can be faked out into rewarding non contributors if they use this
>metric and non contributors get into the author lists.  The problem seems to lie
>with poorly chosen tools and the ability of undeserving individuals to circumvent
>the system.
>
>Bill

I believe that, for many people, the fundamental motivations for doing 
research are the thrill of doing it _and_ the resulting credit (beyond the 
more mundane job offers and grants) for the work. Fuzzy, non-uniform, and 
uninformative (e.g. alphabetical order) methods of listing the authors of 
a publication obfuscate the importance of the individual contributions. 

Not having an _explicit_ and standard authorship rule that needs no "off-line"
interpretations seems to be at the root of many problems. IMHO, it is 
surprising that *science* is so "fuzzy" in its methods of acknowledging its 
contributors.

Perhaps one way of tackling the real life issues of grants, better 
credibility, etc., might be to list group leaders, grant getters, etc., 
on lines separate from the authors line, explicitly on the front page
(rather than in the obscure acknowledgements section). And they would be 
identified explicitly as such - group leaders, advisors, etc. 

Of course, any method is good only so long as people play by the rules.

Sriram
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:56:24 GMT

In article <87265@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:

>Very well.  Here is how I have "learned to live with jerks": I recommend
>against granting them tenure.  Is this real enough for you?

This one really speaks for itself.

>
>---Rsk

Dov
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Questions about Fabricant
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:10:45 GMT

In article <92242.193435NAYLORD@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <NAYLORD@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>Maybe this has already been answered and I missed it
> but..

I told you we need FAQ for this newsgroup -:)

Anyway:

>Why did Dr. Fabrikant have Dov Bai post these documents?
>Why didn't he post them himself?  How did he come to
>pick Dov Bai? Was it more or less random?

Fabrikant seems to have sent his documents to a big list of people
of whom he had e-mail addresses of. It seems likely that he took his
list from the joint membership records of the AMS (American Mathematical
Society) and SIAM (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics).
I did not know who is Fabrikant until this incidence, but he probably 
thought that people on the above societies would have some professional
understanding of his scientific contributions.

I chose to post his mail on sci.research.career because I thought it was
relevant to the readership of that group. Slightly after the postings
have started I posted also to sci.research.

Dov
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:38:48 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization

In article <715020002@pike.cs.duke.edu> srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.205631.28434@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>In article <714936705@pike.cs.duke.edu> srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug27.154754.20355@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>>>
>>>
>>>Wouldn't it be nice if all
>>>tenured faculty were also decent human beings?  
>>
>>What is your metric of decent human beings? Why do you think that
>>_your_ metric should determine the scientific career of a junior faculty
>>member ? Different people have different tastes.
>
>Seriously though, I think that a good metric is that if the person is
>disruptive enough to harm the work of the other people in the department,
>then they should not be granted tenure.  

Look, from what I (we) have read and seen the source of the problem
at university departments is exacly because they dont take into 
account just the quality of research and teaching, which is their mission.
They then call disruptive those who want to innovate and change things
for the better. You still have to give some evidence that junior faculty
promoted solely on the basis of their research and teaching are doing
any bad to a department. The facts so far are quite the contrary.

>Of course, it might be the
>case that the whole rest of the department is made up of "jerks", and
>our lonely tenure-seeking person is the "decent human being".  In that
>case, it might not seem fair, but a person given a guaranteed job for
>life must be able to work with the group of people that are there.  If
>that means they ALL have to be jerks, then so be it!

But a department becomes full of jerks because your metric is used
in the first place. 

You still did not answer my question: Why is your metric should be the
one to be used, even if it is against the goals of a University. You just
repeat saying "because I like it that way and if I have the power
it will continue to be that way forever". This is not a reasoned argument,
but maybe you _don't_ care  to give any.

>
>-- 
>Steve Tate srt@cs.duke.edu | The reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem,
>Dept. of Computer Science  | above all other sciences, is that its laws are
>Duke University     | absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of all
>Durham, NC  27706   | other sciences are to some extent debatable. (Einstein)

Dov
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: a few comments on Fabrikant
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:25:47 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

>From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
>Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
>In article <BtMEFC.Hps@cs.dal.ca> kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes:
>>	There's too much detail in Fabrikant's articles to
>>	suggest that they are merely the deluded workings
>>	of a paranoid schizophrenic/personality.
>    I have no training in psychology, but my understanding is that
>paranoid schizophrenics can create quite detailed and often internally
>self-consistent delusions.  (If someone who does know something about
>psychology can either confirm or deny this, go ahead.)  It is only by
>reference to our common understanding of the world that one can show
>their delusions to be just that.

	Point taken.  Though I must point out, I find it
	hard to believe that any biochemical imbalance 
	in the brain (I'm sure you would agree that
	schizophrenia and like neuroses can be linked to
	biochemistry) would allow a manc
	to function at the top of his intellectual ability.
	But the intellectual output of this man has been
	clearly documented.  So, my skepticism of your point
	remains real.  	
		


>>	If a man was so desperate 
>>	to be heard, why the court injunction to silence him?>

>     In most countries, including this one, there are laws against libel
>and slander.  There is no need to assume that anything sinister was
>going on here.
>
>				Marc R. Roussel
>                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
>

	Yes, I'm aware of the laws.  And I'm also aware of the
	law as a tool to supress undesired speech.  While the
	laws of libel and slander are noble ventures in the
	battle against hate literature and what not, they are
	disproportionately implemented by those insecure with
	the truth.  <---this is my subjective opinion, my observation.

	Slander and libel suits are postmortems of the fact.
	Their validity is unquestioned.  Court injunctions
	that protect battered wives and attempt to prevent
	physical harm on others,  are likewise unquestioned.
	But court injunctions that suppress interpretation of fact,
	as what clearly Fabrikant was doing, chart a dangerous 
	course for our justice system.  Yes, it is legal. And we all
	know the legal system favors criminals or victims.
	Okay, maybe that last statement was a bit harsh...but I
	think you get my drift.



		Kumar

ps:	Nobody's justifying what Fabrikant did.  I hope the law throws
	the full book at him.  But here is an opportunity to expose
	the sinister world of grants and granting.  Let's not wait
	for the window to close.

-- 
                                  *******************************************
   Kumar Yelubandi                 **  I don't believe in a lot           **
   (good wines > good times!)      **  of things. And I quit thinking     **
   ...in the year 2525...          **  six years ago, so...DON'T BOTHER ME!!! 
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: ronald@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Ronald A. Amundson)
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:34:15 GMT

In article <714926508@pike.cs.duke.edu> srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen
R. Tate) writes: >...  I do have one question about the whole
situation: >the night of the shooting, Headline News reported that
Fabrikant >was reported to have brought a gun to a previous faculty
meeting.  >Does anyone know if that is true?  If so, why wasn't he out
on his >butt long ago?  > 

I heard a CNN report which stated that he was _thought_ to have
brought a gun to a meeting, so the campus police were asked to
searched him.  They found no gun.  The police were then instructed by
a higher administrator to apologize to Fabrikant.



Ron Amundson




Newsgroups: sci.research
From: 890707p@ace.acadiau.ca (GLENN G. PARSONS)
Subject: FROG CANCER RESEARCHERS
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:55:36 GMT

I am currently gathering information for a literature review on the Lucke 
renal adenocarcinoma of Rana pipiens, and am interested to know if anyone 
could provide me with email adresses for several figures prominent in this 
field over the past few decades.  In particular, R.G.McKinnell, who I 
believe worked at the University of Minnesota, and K.S Tweedell, both of 
whom have produced numerous papers on the subject.
	I would like to hear from anyone involved in the field of amphibian 
tumor pathology, however, or even in other areas of lower vertebrate and 
invertebrate neoplasia.
	Thanx, 
                  Glenn G Parsons
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: sitaram@eng.uiowa.edu (Sitaram Yadavalli)
Subject: victims of Fabrikant/concordia shooting
Originator: sitaram@hitchcock
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 07:42:09 GMT
Organization: Department of Elect. and Comp. Engr., University of Iowa, USA.

can anyone please post the names of the people who died in this shooting 
incident at Concordia ?

Sitaram
From: kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:18:48 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada


	I feel I must say something about this.  But first, I must 
add that I've never been a graduate student myself and don't
have the inclination to be one.  Now that the disclaimer is
attached;


	There's too much detail in Fabrikant's articles to
	suggest that they are merely the deluded workings
	of a paranoid schizophrenic/personality.  Something
	is dreadfully wrong in the engineering faculty at
	Concordia.  Facts are mortal enemies of those who
	fight the truth.  Facts are also exaggerations of those
	who claim to know the truth.  
		From the piggy-backed postings of Dov Bai, two
	things stick out.  One, Fabrikant seems to be a very capable
	and intelligent research scientist (ie. the quantity
	of publication attests to this, as well as the variety of
	different journals that have accepted his articles).
	Why then, was he refused tenure? (I'm assuming he was 
	eligible for tenure).
		Secondly, perhaps more importantly, here was a
	man crying to be heard.  I presume he sent e-mail to
	to the other 25 letters of the alphabet as well, not
	just "b" initiated addresses.  If a man was so desperate 
	to be heard, why the court injunction to silence him?
	If they were confident Fabrikant was given to frequent
	bouts of delusion (as was Bobby Fischer in his duel with
	the ruling chess congress back in '71), then isn't it 
	better to let the media expose this "paranoia"?  Unless,
	of course, there was no paranoia.  
		It's a shame that three professors (none of whom
        seem to be mentioned by Fabrikant in the articles) got caught in
	a tornado caused by what seems to be an engineering 
	faculty's irregular atmospheric condition.    


		Kumar

ps:	In the end, no matter what, Fabrikant proved to be
	what his critics charged, ie. unstable.  It will
	be interesting to see how much the engineering faculty
	is going to co-operate in any derivative investigation.
	
-- 
                                  *******************************************
   Kumar Yelubandi                 **  I don't believe in a lot           **
   (good wines > good times!)      **  of things. And I quit thinking     **
   ...in the year 2525...          **  six years ago, so...DON'T BOTHER ME!!!
From: rsherme@diamond.nswc.navy.mil (Russel Shermer (R43))
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: fyi #116: A Review of Basic Physics Funding
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:11:57 GMT
Organization: NAVSWC DD White Oak Det.

Posted for:
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
Phone: (202) 332-9662
Email: fyi@aip.org
These postings are also available as regular emailings.  
Send requests to fyi@aip.org.



A Review of Basic Physics Funding: 1969-1991

FYI No. 116, August 27, 1992

While the Congress takes its August recess, the 13 appropriations
bills which will fund the federal government for fiscal year 1993
wait in various stages of the appropriations process.  This year,
the caps put in place by the 1990 Budget Agreement have resulted in
some appropriations committees, including that which funds NSF and
NASA, having less money available than needed to even maintain
level funding for all the programs under their jurisdiction.

Throughout each appropriations cycle, much is made of how funding
compares with the previous year.  Yet it can also be instructive to
look back at the longer-term picture.  The information below was
taken from several reports by the National Science Foundation's
Division of Science Resources Studies, which prepares detailed
statistical tables on federal science funding.

The following table gives federal support for Basic Research in
Physics, Astronomy and Geological Sciences (to all federal
agencies) from 1969 to 1991.  The figures for 1990 and 1991 are
estimates only.  The amounts shown are in current dollars for each
year, not constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars.  See FYI #117 for
a review of funding for Applied Research in these areas.

FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS FOR BASIC RESEARCH, 1969-1991
(in thousands of dollars)

          Physics        Astronomy      Geological Sciences

1969:     350,871        174,204        71,353
1970:     338,926        130,731        78,174
1971:     350,733        124,052        76,784
1972:     361,746        128,865        66,990
1973:     350,773        121,477        79,904
1974:     360,300        133,341        80,909
1975:     378,973        163,028        88,593
1976:     388,440        159,960        95,705
1977:     467,414        193,321       128,720
1978:     518,798        209,832       145,114
1979:     535,624        280,643       157,603
1980:     668,155        279,420       198,335
1981:     735,417        274,227       194,205
1982:     790,741        271,114       177,487
1983:     855,104        354,466       178,292
1984:     921,430        379,553       198,010
1985:     959,884        400,676       249,988
1986:   1,003,363        453,050       265,478
1987:   1,072,285        504,500       266,173
1988:   1,205,504        458,524       267,329
1989:   1,395,314        524,643       334,926
1990:   1,520,412        556,483       371,415
1991:   1,699,196        576,633       383,315


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(202) 332-9662
##END##########