HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: riley@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Daniel S. Riley)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 22:21:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.012840.622@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au> wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly) writes:
>As far as I can gather from the discussion so far...(a biased 
>interpretation to be sure)...is that most people do think that
>"honourary authorship" as has been discussed is wrong if not outright
>dishonest.  While it takes place in every field, it seems to me
>that the only areas of science in which it is not viewed as wrong
>is in High Energy Physics and (perhaps) some areas of Biomedical
>research.

I can't speak for other high energy experiments, but at least at CLEO,
the author list comes from the list of physicists who were actively
involved in taking the data used in that analysis.  Since all analyses
use some subset of the same common data, and all active collaboration
members are normally required to take shifts minding the detector,
that does mean that just about everybody ends up on the author list
for each paper--but it also does mean that all those authors made some
contribution (however slight) to the data used in that paper.

We have discussed restricting the author list to just those physicists
who actually worked on that particular analysis, but it never seems to
be a very popular proposal.

Most everyone in the field understands the situation, and generally
knows how to find out who actually wrote a particular paper, so I
don't think it is dishonest--just a bit inconvenient at times, and
confusing for people outside HEP.

(for the record, I am in favor of shortening our author list to the
people who actually did the work, even though I'm primarily one of
those "support" people who would appear on very papers if that was
done.)

-- 
-Dan Riley                          Internet: dsr@lns598.tn.cornell.edu
-Wilson Lab, Cornell University     HEPNET/SPAN: lns598::dsr (44630::dsr)
From: Roger.Firestone@f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Roger Firestone)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Authorship and honesty
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 19:26:00 -0500

I have written a fairly small number of technical papers (because I have worked
in industry, not academia, and publication was not a primary consideration) in
the field of computer science, most as sole author.  My most recent paper had 3
authors listed (the largest number ever for me) in order of contribution to the
effort--as project leader, designer, and the one who actually did the writing of
the paper, my name came first; the guy who did half the programming came second,
and the guy who supplied some of the ideas and a bibliography came third. 
People who provided financing only were not acknowledged--what _science_ did
they contribute?
 
In the Renaissance and early modern period, there was a tradition of patronage
of artists.  da Vinci never signed a painting with both his name and that of his
patron.  Patrons were acknowledged in different ways--a portrait of them
appearing in the crowd in an otherwise classical scene, for example.  Beethoven
dedicated many of his works to specific patrons, but they don't get credit for
the creation of the music.
 
IMHO, the presence of a name in the author list should mean that a true creative
contribution to the science in the paper was made by that person.  I can't say
how much that is true for high-energy physics papers with their myriad
authors--I don't work in that field and don't know too many people who do.
 
Where at least part of the honesty issue comes in is that publication lists are
used by people to support their applications for grants, promotion, tenure, etc.
 We are now talking about real money, folks.  If someone abuses his
position/power to have his name placed on a paper as author when he has made no
real contribution to the work in it, and then submits the paper on his pub. list
as evidence that he is entitled to receive a grant, promotion, tenure, or other
emolument, that is FRAUD, pure and simple.  It is passing oneself off as
something other than what one really is.  I recall reading some discussion of
this in Science maagazine some years back and getting the impression that
certain departments do not regard an author listed after the 3rd or so as having
made any real contribution to a paper and disregarding the work alleged to be
done as part of the person's record for promotion.  What this means is that the
currency of academic publication has been devalued.  And what do people from
such a department think about those from other areas where this kind of thing
does not go on?
 
Of course, once we have arrived at this state, it's hard to get back to purity. 
Entropy goes only one way, without the input of energy from outside.  But it
seems to me that making an effort to restore a condition of honesty and truth in
science is worthwhile.  Better we should do it ourselves and soon; Rep. John
Dingell is waiting in the wings to bash the whole enterprise of science if we
don't.
 
Roger.Firestone@f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org
"I've been sent here to study you people."
From: sylvank@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Sylvan Katz)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: authorship thread archive wanted (PhD Research)
Keywords: Authorship, co-authorship, Fabrikant
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:52:44 GMT
Organization: University of Sussex

My PdD research is concerned with the factors that effect collaboration
and co-authorship. I would like to locate an archive of postings
concerning the authorship and honesty thread which has transpired on
sci.research (and other news groups) since the initial posting of the
Fabricant messages (including those messages). Please e-mail
information about possible archive sites directly to me. Thank you for
your assistance.

sylvank@syma.sussex.ac.uk

J. Sylvan Katz
University of Sussex
Science Policy Research Unit
Falmer, Brighton
UK BN1 9RF
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:58:08 GMT

In article <5SEP199220221014@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Sep5.214036.11891@tc.cornell.edu>, 
>     bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes...
>
>>In article <5SEP199214402611@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> 
>>     ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) 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*?
>
>>What does funding has to do with authorship ? If I am an author of a book 
>>and a publisher chose to fund my time and publish my book, would you suggest
>>that the publisher name be written as a co-author of my book ? Why not
>>simply acknowledge everyone according to his contribution: the person
>>or institution who funds it can be acknowledged as such, exactly like it
>>is done in any intellectual work.
>
>Here are my responses:
>
>(1) Your example has nothing whatsoever to do with the case Mr. Mancini 
>    mentioned above.  IMPO, the authorship situation is completely different.

Why do you think that writer(s), painters, sculptors are any different
from a researcher( or a group of researchers) doing science ? You could
find many mathematicians, for example, who will tell you that doing 
mathematics is very similar to playing music. An artist funded by the
National Endowment for the art is not expected to sign the name of his
sponsor on his drawing, Mr. Mancini was expected to do it.

>(2) You have neglected everything else in my post, in which I carefully
>    qualified the conditions under which *I* would allow a funding source
>    to be listed as a co-author.  I will not repeat it - if you would know
>    the answer to your question, go back and re-read the original post.

I did not ignored the rest of your post, I just edited out much of
what you wrote and left the part which I objected most. Here is another
part from your post that emphesizes the point:

>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 same can be said about any creative activity.

>(3) Finally, all "intellectual works" are not the same.

Please explain why other creative activities are not the same as
being creative in science.

>
>RG

Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: aksyeo@cs.uh.edu (Arthur K. S. Yeo)
Subject: Entering Law With Technical Background
Followup-To: esl_manager@uh.edu
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:03:22 GMT

Hi netters,

	I am considering entering into Law school with a 
technical background in Computer Science. What are the 
advantanges/disadvantages? Are there pitfalls/unrealistic
goals to avoid? What possible areas of Law should be 
considered for practice, besides Copyright Laws? What type 
of organizations (Private or Public sector) would 
--
Arthur 
ESL Manager
University of Houston - University Park
From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:14:54 GMT
Organization: Space Science and Engineering Center, UW Madison

In article <1992Sep14.121231.17480@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>, SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan Schloerer) writes:
|> In    <STEINLY.92Sep12144323@topaz.ucsc.edu>
|>       steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu   (Steinn Sigurdsson)   wrote :
|> 
|> Probably it's   Robert A. Berner, Paleo-CO2 and climate, Nature 358
|> (9 July 1992), 114.   

Owing to vagaries of the UW library system, I have difficulty getting
to the most recent issues so I can't comment on this.

|>In  Thomas J. Crowley and Gerald R. North,  Paleoclimatology,
|>    Oxford Univ.Press, New York 1991  (was finished sometime in 1990)
|> which I haven't handy, I remember having read about the same.  Again,
|> the warm and cool epochs of the past 500+ million years more or less
|> fitted in with the CO2 record,  the Ordovician glaciation was "the"
|> puzzle, and, as far as I recall, no plausible explanation was yet
|> known for that puzzle.  

Crowley & North p 226 (re Ordovician glaciation):

	"How can extensive ice sheets and high CO2 coexist? One 
	consideration involves the seasonal cycle - if the pole
	is located in coastal regions there may be a small seasonal
	cycle because of the proximity of water. Summer temperatures
	might not get above freezing even with higher CO2. The above
	hypothesis has been tested with EBMs [energy balance models] ...
	Glaciated conditions may still be possible for higher CO2
	levels if the pole is located in coastal regions. Thus a
	perplexing paleoclimate paradox may be resolvable in an economic
	way and in a manner entirely consistent with present climate
	theory. However, this conclusion warrants considerably more
	testing before it can be accepted."

mt
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Solar Fuel Alcohol (Was Re: Mary Jane has a great Biomass)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:20:42 GMT

In article <charlesv.715280986@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>, charlesv@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Charles Van Duren) writes...
>I wasn't talking about harvesting alone. I'm talking about GROWING
>the stuff, and the massive amounts of (oil-based) chemicals required.
>Also, corn growing has been compared to topsoil stripmining because
>the chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides leave no soil
>structure to hold the soil together to prevent erosion, and to
>decompose plant matter into humus.

What is the amount of energy cost that goes into fertilizer?  Bulk ammonium
nitrate costs a couple dozen cents a pound, even if the cost was 100%
energy that's not much there.

Also, don't forget we don't have to grow 'human food quality' corn.  Less
fertilizer or other varieties more suited to alcohol production and less
suited to food production could be used.

Also as to fertilizer who says we have to use synthetic stuff?  Use
the pelletized sewage sludge that many places are trying to get rid of?
As long as the corn is not grown for food, it's killing 2 birds with one
stone.

Also who says we have to use corn?  There are probably dozens of plants
that are better than corn (or hemp) that we just don't know about.

-Mike
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive? (Gatorade results)
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:54:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

About the radioactive Gatorade...

Where did people get the idea that Gatorade is loaded with potassium?
According to the label, there is about .8 grams of potassium in 521
grams of the powder.  In the liquid, the potassium concentration is
about 100 ppm.  .8 grams of potassium will emit around 2 energetic
(1.4 MeV) gammas per second, as well as some number of annihilation
gammas from positrons.

You'd do better with a container of salt substitute (potassium
chloride) or fertilizer (10-15% potassium, say).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: burris@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jim Burris)
Subject: Re: --Warming Threat to Economy
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:32:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.094843.20185@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <STEINLY.92Sep10140417@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>>In article <1466601760@igc.apc.org> tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray) writes:
>>
>>
>>Ignoring the ludicrous 10-18 K warming figure (what _did_ they
>>do to get that? Do a linear extrapolation of 2.5K/50years and add
>>nominal error bars? ) it could be noted that 1% variations in GDP
>>are economic noise, and US growth rates are 2-3% per year long term
>>average. Anyway, isn't the whole problem excess economic growth
>>by the "North"? ;-)
>
>Even more fundamentally, how was that $60 billion derived?  Loss of 
>seacoast real estate?  Was the increased productivity of forestry and
>agriculture from the CO2 fertilization effect taken into account?
>
 How much will agricultural and forestry productivity increase from CO2
"fertilization"? It seems from info previously posted in sci.environment that
many plants cannot use the extra CO2 to their advantage.

>
>-- 
>szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
>Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 

Jim Burris
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: ibbotson@rtsg.mot.com (Craig Ibbotson, x2343)
Subject: Re: Diapers (probably a FAQ)
Keywords: diapers,environment
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:10:27 GMT

lattanzi@coos.dartmouth.edu (Stephen C. Lattanzi) writes:

>What are people's opinions on the advantages/disadvantages of cloth and
>disposable diapers?  I have heard arguments on either side of this issue
>(from an environmental perspective), but only vaguely.  I'd be interested
>in hearing what people have to say, as it will be an important issue for
>my wife and I sometime around 3/92 :-).
> 
>Sorry if this is a FAQ.

My wife and I decided on cloth diapers.  We wash our own, which saves us
the greatest amount of money.  At first, we did it because of environmental
reasons, but I have since come to believe that the environmental question
is cloudy.

A great deal of this debate depends on where you live.  If you live in an
area where solid waste is a problem, cloth diapers are definitely the way
to go.  The amount of solid waste from disposable diapers is tremendous.  
There is also the question of putting human waste in a landfill.  If you
live in an area where water supply is a problem, disposable diapers are a
better choice.  It takes a lot of water to wash cloth diapers, whether you
wash them at home or have a service wash them for you.    Other arguments
center around which is more resource-efficient - disposables require 
petroleum products, a non-renewable resource, in their production.  Yet 
other arguments center around energy-efficiency - disposables require
energy to be produced; cloth require energy to be washed and dried.  
Which is more efficient?  I have seen studies showing cloth as better in 
these areas, and I have seen studies showing disposables as better in 
these areas. 

My conclusion is that there are two factors to consider:  demographics
(are you in a water-restricted area, or an area that has a solid waste
problem?) and personal choice.  We like to use the cloth diapers because
they seem to be more "comfortable" for our baby (there is no scientific
evidence to support this - it is our own gut feeling), they are cheaper,
and they don't contribute to the solid waste problem here in Illinois.
Someone living in another state might choose disposables, because they
don't require precious water resources and are more convenient.

One last note - we eventually went to cloth during the day, and one
disposable just before bed.  The cloth diapers tended to leak after a
full nights worth of use.  Using the night-time disposable helped our
son sleep through the night, and we didn't have to change the sheets
every morning.  If you do go with cloth, I can't recommend the Nikki
diaper wraps enough.  They were essential!
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:15:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

The parameterizations of sub-grid scale phenomena (like cumulus cloudiness)
have everything to do with the feedback mechanisms and net radiative balance.
There are a range of feedbacks (depending on method) that can be positive
or negative.

Example.  Increase temperature 1 degree celsius due to any cause (natural
or anthropogenic).  Look at range of model parameterizations of cloudiness,
sea/air heat fluxes, etc.  Some may result in a net albedo change that
would cause a reduction in incoming shortwave radiation GREATER than the
reduction in outgoing flux due to CO2.  Exactly the same thing we are
seeing now with Pinatubo dust...... coolest summers on record in mamy
northern hemisphere sites.

There is a great deal of discussion about feedback mechanisms and whether
they are positive or negative.  To quote from Albert Arking's article
"The Radiative Effects of Clouds and their Impact on Climate", Bulletin
of the AMS, V72 #6, June 1991:

  On cloud feedback in climate simulations, there are wide discrepancies
  amongst models.  Investigators find, in general, that the sign of 
  cloud feedback is positive when one allows the spatial distribution of
  clouds to vary in response to climate change.  When one additionally
  takes into account the effect of changes in cloud properties, that 
  result is less certain.  The conclusion is: 1) clouds MAY have a strong
  influence in climate change, but 2) we are far from knowing the
  maginitude, and even the sign, of this influence.

Arking's statements seem reasonable based on my experience with numerical
weather prediction models.  The "we're all gonna die" certainty of
others is not reasonable at this point -- there is too much that we don't
know.


-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: "Paper Or Plastic?"
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:25:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <lapiqdINNbqv@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> briang@bari.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Gordon) writes:

>Don't know precisely on that one, but consider the following.  When the City of
>Berkeley, CA, was considering forcing fast food chains (MacDonalds, et al) to
>switch from styrofoam to paper for packaging, the opponents presented several

Did you know that wax covered paper and cardboard, and any paper product that
has been contaminated by food products cannot be recycled anyway.

Do you know what the life expectancy of wax paper is in your average landfill.
Darn close to styrofoam.

Another example of so called "environmental regualations" that do more harm
than good.

Simple solutions for simple people.  The rest of us have to live in the
real world.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:18:03 GMT
	<dhalliwe.716066187@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>
	<1992Sep9.222855.25704@meteor.wisc.edu>
	<dhalliwe.716173595@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA's message of Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:06:35 GMT

In article <dhalliwe.716173595@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell) writes:

   tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:

   >A more exact statement, if anyone is interested, goes like this: Well
   >established physics shows that a doubling of CO2 without any changes in
   >the temperature of earth surface, ocean, or atmosphere, will reduce
   >outgoing infrared radiation by some 4 W/m^2. Since incoming radiation is
   >unchanged, the excess goes into heating the atmosphere, until a new
   >equilibrium is reached, where the infared emissions of the earth, ocean, and
   >atmosphere are sufficiently larger for an extra 4 W /m^2 to escape.

   >Will that do?

       Yes. The major point of difference in this statement from your earlier
   one is that now we have changed the radiative exchange with space. The only
   way we can exchange energy with space is through radiation. To return to
   equilibrium, you can't do any fiddle-faddle with redistributing those 4W/sq.m
   elsewhere in the atmosphere, as Josh Rivero (sp?) had wanted to do with
   the sub-grid GCM discussion.

      The question remains for the "non-believers": how will the radiative
   equilibrium be restored without warming the surface? To claim that rising
   CO2 levels will lead to *no* warming requires some other process that
   increases IR losses to space. And if you are assuming no warming, you
   obviously can't impose warming-induced feedbacks to adjust things!

I don't quite know what Josh Rivero (sp?) was getting at,
but the two complaints about climate modelling that I hear
most frequently are not over the radiative transfer but
a) what the actual CO2 load will be given known emissions
 - the GCMs take an assumed change in CO2, but the CO2 balance
is clearly missing a term, there's an unknown sink, and presumably
at least one missing feedback loop - I noted that IPCC92 started
allowing for biofeedback, which I seem to remember was assumed
negligible in IPCC90? Also there's ocean sinks and anthropogenic
sinks ;-)

b) Are albedo changes adequately modelled? 
A definitely niggle is illustarted by a major glacial
vs CO2 concentration chart that was in Nature last month,
showing a major glacial epoch occurred while CO2 concentrations
were O(10) time current ones. Clearly some combination of
albedo and continental shifts managed to cool the Earth despite
a much greater greenhouse effect.

Comments?

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  I know people whose idea of fun				*
*  Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun		*
*  Oh let me be as free as them					*
*  				- BB 1986			*