HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:31:46 GMT
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Aug27.154754.20355@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>
>Learn to live with jerks. It's the real world.

Unfortunately, this is true --- many of the jerks get through.  What
I was saying is that they shouldn't.  Wouldn't it be nice if all
tenured faculty were also decent human beings?  If a school tries to
keep jerks out of its tenured faculty, I say "more power to them"!

>>As far as what the department "owed" Fabrikant, I don't believe ANY
>>university is obligated to give tenure to such an abusive person.
>
>If Fabrikant's claims regarding pressures for writing someone else's
>name on publications are correct, whould you agree that these faculty
>members were abusive and therfore their tenure should be taken, and they
>should not have had any say  in tenure decision of Fabrikant ?

Yes, I agree totally if he was pressured.  However, from what I read,
it didn't sound like he was ever pressured to put anyone's name on
a publication.  It sounded like he put other names on (someone whose
last name starts with an "S" --- I'd have to look back to see for
sure who it was) out of "professional courtesy", since the work was
done supported by their labs.  It sounded like Fabrikant, entirely
on his own, decided to put their names on the papers, without ever 
being asked to do so (did I misread the postings?).  This is clearly 
common practice, and doesn't really hurt much.  Furthermore, I 
distinctly recall reading a letter from one of these senior people 
arguing quite strongly for Fabrikant's tenure.  That doesn't sound 
like mistreatment to me!


-- 
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,sci.research.careers
From: wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Organization: Macquarie University, Australia.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 07:22:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.223411.5525@ast.saic.com> seymour@ast.saic.com (Ken Seymour) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.050420.8740@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au> wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly) writes:
>>
>>Someone just recently metioned the physics field where
>>as many as 50 "authors" maybe more will be listed.  He
>>goes on to say this is ok, even if some (most?) have
>>not even read the paper!!! Ugh.  
>
>The original poster was in the High-Energy Physics field.  In that field
>a single experiment takes longer than the length of one doctoral
>candidacy.  The early people build parts of the detector machinery.  
>Then some other people write software to acquire all the data onto
>tapes.  Then, still other people run the experiment and analyze the data.  
>The entire experiment can require 50-100 scientists to perform.
>
>It is not uncommon for someone to have built a few racks of the detector
>electronics (they usually fill up a trailer or two) then get his PhD and
>leave the project.  Then a few years later, when they have data to
>analyze, another scientist writes a paper on the results and lists all
>the scientists that built the equipment and wrote the software and ran
>the experiment as authors.
>
>The number of authors in a High-Energy Physics paper reflects the
>reality that nothing can be done in this field by a single individual
>without help of a team of 50-200 or so people over a period of 10-15
>years.
>-- 
>Ken Seymour
>seymour@ast.saic.com

Ken, 

Excuse me if I am being dense here, but have you not just described
the _entire_ system of science as is viewed through the "building
on past research" philosphy!!!

I am currently investigating spatial analysis techniques that might
be employed to evaluate general circulation model output used by 
hydrologists, ecologists and environmental scientists.  Do I include
as _authors_ the people who wrote the GCMs, the people who built the
CRAY that the model runs on, the authors of the geographical
information system under which I am developing my models? How about
the folks who derived the algorithms that I am applying to this
problem?

I too would have 50-500 authors on _every_ paper.  NO. These people
are acknowleded though citation, acknowledgements AND securing there
permission to use their work where there is any doubt about whether
citation is sufficient.

But to suggest that someone who somewhere down the line created some
piece upon which your work builds should automatically become an 
author on _your_ work, _your_ contribution, says heaps about the
usefulness of using _authorship_ to demostrate YOUR contributions
to science.

Cheers,
Chris
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: zukicn@wl.aecl.ca
Subject: REACTOR PHYSICIST Position - R&D
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:19:20 GMT

I am posting this for my manager & branch. Do NOT send your resumes, 
inquiries, etc. to me, as it all has to go through the Human
Resources and the person listed below. Our phone is: (204) 753-2311. 

Thank you,

Nermin Zukic

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

               RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

                                for a

                          REACTOR PHYSICIST


                   Salary:  CDN $35,000 to 57,500
             depending on qualifications and experience


        A Reactor Physicist is required to perform nuclear reactor core
        design, safety assessments and related support, and to develop
        computer programs to assist analysis of data.  The work may
        include fuel characterization studies, radiation transport
        calculations, fuel geometry optimization, and reactor operation
        and safety-related assessments.  The above tasks include code
        development to expand existing capability, automate routine
        tasks or improve code efficiency.

        An advanced degree in Physics or Nuclear Engineering and a
        strong background in computer programming and utilization are
        required for this position.  A bachelor degree with high
        academic standing and relevant experience would also be
        considered.

        While previous experience with neutron diffusion theory,
        multigroup neutron transport theory or Monte Carlo calculational
        techniques would be a definite asset, less experienced
        candidates with an ability to adapt quickly to new challenges
        are encouraged to apply.  Demonstrated technical report writing
        and oral communications skills would be useful assets.

        The Whiteshell Laboratories is located at Pinawa, an attractive
  recreational/residential community on the banks of the Winnipeg River,
  northeast of Winnipeg.  We are a 1000 employee laboratory with
  research interests in both nuclear and non-nuclear activities.  The
  laboratory has a strong, comprehensive complement of in-house support
  services/facilities and research is well supported with advanced
  experimental equipment and computers.


  INTERESTED?    Contact A. Portman
                 AECL Research
                 Whiteshell Laboratories
                 Pinawa, Manitoba
                 R0E 1L0
                 (File No. WSR2016)
From: sriniv@cathedral.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Srinivas Kankanahalli)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Fabricant's victims
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:29:10 GMT

Hi
  Would someone kindly post what exactly transpired and who the unfortunate
victims were??

Thanks
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: lwtsai@utkvx2.utk.edu (Liang Wu Tsai @ U. of Tenn., Knoxville)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:50:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.132822.4428@bb1t.monsanto.com>, tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com writes...
> 
>He was ranting like a lunatic.  Much of what he said may have been 
>the exaggerations of a paranoid.  Consider his argument that some people
>had been co-authors on his papers and didn't even know what the paper
>was about.  *I* have been co-author of a few papers that *I* didn't even
>know about.  I was asked for help in a problem and contributed (presumably
>to the author) enough to be included as an "et al".  If you found some of
>those papers and asked me about them, I'd probably give you serously
>blank looks.  Maybe he did the same thing and then in his paranoia

If this is true, should I include teachers who taught some basic classes in the
fields in which I am doing research? I would surely assume that they made great
contributions to my research career. Especially the teacher on the subject of
the paper.

I think a proper way is to express his appreciation in the Acknowledgement
section of the paper. 

For a junior researcher, especially when a graduate student working with a
professor with a good reputation, the junior tends to include the senior's name
in his publication. From the junior side, this helps him to get into the
research circle a little easier, and make his boss a little happier (in most
cases). Form the senior side, this help him to accumulate the publication
count. This is very very common in academia. I would like to appeal to those
seniors, be honest.

> ... 
>Although I have also seen "slave labor" in academia, my personal feeling is
>that if someone doesn't like how they are treated, go somewhere else rather
>than giving the perpertrator positive reenforcement by staying and working
>for them.  I have a very low tolerance for abuse.

This seems impossible. One can know whether his boss is treating him as 
a "slaver labor" in the first contcat. He has to know his boss gradually,
especially when there is some results (papers, reports) come out. This takes
time. We do not have too much time to do this kind of test.  

>  ...
>  TED FEUERBACH   Scientific Systems Consultant  Trilogy Consulting, Inc. 
>  Lake St. Louis, MO        (314) 537-6603       tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
>  Disclaimer:  The opinions expressed herein are MY OWN and obviously not
>  the opinions of Trilogy, Monsanto or either of my two ex-wives.           
>

L. W. Tsai 
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:54:11 GMT

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.

>	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 thought that he was in a tenure-stream position when all this
started.

>	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
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
From: helpdesk@otago.ac.nz
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:24:45 +1300
Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

It might be worth noting that Dr Fabrikant did not post all those messages.
They appear to be posted by Dov Bai, who was one of the recipients of the
original email.

Dr Fabrikant probably did not even see the posts (or flames)

What a sad situation

KLox
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: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 12:33:47 GMT

In article <87357@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.214318.1166@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>In article <87317@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@aspen.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?
>>>
>>>In any case, I was simply giving my method for "learn[ing] to live with jerks"
>>>in the "real world", as a previous article suggested; in no way did I suggest
>>>that this method would be appropriate for anyone other than myself.
>>
>>Wonderful attitude.
>>Just to prevent any misunderstanding: The previous line is a SARCASM.
>
>Hmmm.  This is interesting.  I mention that I recommend against granting
>tenure to jerks; and I further mention that this is simply my approach,
>and may not be suitable for everyone.  What part of this do you have a 
>problem with?  (Do you think that I should, instead, recommend *for*
>granting tenure to jerks?  Or do you think that I should, instead,
>demand that everyone adopt my attitude?)

I think that this sub-thread is distracting us from the main issue,
becasue it deals too much with personality charactrisics of yours. I
dont know you personally, and I certainly dont know anything about the
specific cases which you approved/disapproved for tenure. What I am 
arguing is that trashing scientific careers of junior faculty for any
reason other then quality of teaching/research is wrong and goes 
against the goals of a university.

My choice of the word "jerk" in an earlier posting may have been a poor
one. I did not realize that it might distract us that much.

>>---Rsk

Dov
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Saturday, 29 Aug 1992 19:34:35 EDT
From: <NAYLORD@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Questions about Fabricant

Maybe this has already been answered and I missed it
 but..

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?

BTW, Dr. F. didn't sound that unstable to me. Many of his
letters seem very sober and articulate. He just sounded
VERY angry at the injustice.  It's too easy to
dismiss his "rantings".

D. Naylor
Xref: sparky sci.research:1033 sci.research.careers:922
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: My letter to Fabrikant
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:18:33 GMT


For "History's sake", I am posting the e.-mail letter that I have sent to
Fabrikant on Aug.20, short time after I received his first message. This
was before the huge file with documents came in the mail.

Dov

----------------------- cut here -----------------------------

Dear V.I. fabrikant,

  First let me say that I fully sympathize with you, and I am 
inclinded to believe what you are saying. I have been witnessing
similar things in the past, although I dont think that anybody
went to jail because of it.

Now, I have few questions and few suggestions to make:

   1) There are not enough facts in you message( I am talking 
      about the only one that I received today, you may have sent
      more that I did not receive yet). This makes it difficult
      for anybody who wants to help you. What I think is missing
      is what exactly made you to go to jail and why. Did you
      make anything wrong that you did not tell us about ? Even
      if you did, it does not invalidate your case, but it makes
      it hard to write to the rector of Concordia without knowing
      the facts. People cannt just speak up for something they
      dont know thae facts about.

   2) Another missing points are (i) why did you wait so much time 
      and cooperated with these people ? I note that you and them
      have publications since 1982, at least. (ii) since you waited
      for at least 10 years, what has triggered you now to action ?

 Please understand that the above is not meant to shed doubts
on your claims. It will make your case stronger and easier for other
people to help you if you let more facts to be known.


Dov Bai 



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: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:47:54 GMT

In article <714926508@pike.cs.duke.edu> srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate) writes:
>In article <BtMEFC.Hps@cs.dal.ca> kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes:
>>
>>		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).
>
>This comment represents an attitude that really gets to me.  I have
>known people who believe that as long as a scientist puts out good
>research, then nothing else matters.   Go back and read the messages
>written by Fabrikant --- the man was abusive, arrogant, and more
>than a little unstable.  Would *YOU* want to work with someone like
>that on a daily basis?  I wouldn't!  

Tough for you. Tenure is given on quality of research and teaching.
Nowhere in the job description there is a requirement to be perceived
as an easy-going by a bunch of senior involnurable faculty members.
Unfortunately, many of these faculty members use their involnurability
(i.e. they are already tenured, so they can do whatever they want
without any punishment) to trash professional lives of good junior
faculty members.

If being perceived as easy-going is part of the tenure decision
than it should be stated clearly in the university codes. I dont
think it is, because it is highly subjective.

>is as big a pain as Fabrikant seems to have been, it doesn't matter
>one whit how good their research was.  

Learn to live with jerks. It's the real world.

>As far as what the department "owed" Fabrikant, I don't believe ANY
>university is obligated to give tenure to such an abusive person.

If Fabrikant's claims regarding pressures for writing someone else's
name on publications are correct, whould you agree that these faculty
members were abusive and therfore their tenure should be taken, and they
should not have had any say  in tenure decision of Fabrikant ?


>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 Bai
From: Roger.Firestone@f10.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Roger Firestone)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
From: JRBANGA@poppy.ucdavis.edu (JULIO RODRIGUEZ BANGA)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Was Fabrikant a big pain?
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:28:12 GMT
Organization: University of California, Davis
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20


 srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate) writes:

>This comment represents an attitude that really gets to me.  I have
>known people who believe that as long as a scientist puts out good
>research, then nothing else matters.   Go back and read the messages
>written by Fabrikant --- the man was abusive, arrogant, and more
>than a little unstable.  Would *YOU* want to work with someone like
>that on a daily basis?  I wouldn't!  As far as I'm concerned, if someone
>is as big a pain as Fabrikant seems to have been, it doesn't matter
>one whit how good their research was.  The scientific community can
>certainly wait for another person to come along that knows how to
>deal with human beings.

 Well, after reading the postings of Fabrikant, I don't see an abusive and
arrogant scientist. A bit unstable, perhaps, but how would *YOU* feel if your
bosses are treating you like he was treated? Desperate. What kind of
information do you have to say he was a big pain? Why not saying that of 
his bosses? 

>As far as what the department "owed" Fabrikant, I don't believe ANY
>university is obligated to give tenure to such an abusive person.

 I don't think any University should give tenure to parasites either.
 And many universities are full of parasites of the kind described by
Fabrikant.
  Abusive? Any evidence?

 Julio.
Xref: sparky sci.research:1003 sci.med:16646
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med
Subject: Re: Medics as scientists ?
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:10:15 GMT
Followup-To: sci.research
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <1992Aug28.202346.10727@maths.tcd.ie> arora@maths.tcd.ie (Ashish Arora) writes:
>
>	Do you find that good doctors (medical doctors) make good researchers,
>or is it the case that good doctors and good researchers are mutually
>exclusive groups?

Usually you can't devote sufficient time to both in order to be
really successful at both.  Being smart is required for both.
I've seen some who succeed, but usually, they are mutually exclusive.
Of course, your definition of "good" and mine probably differ.
Most researchers who are doctors are better doctors than you
are likely to find by picking a doctor out of the phone book,
simply because they are a lot smarter.



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pawel@cs.UAlberta.CA (Pawel Gburzynski)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:58:20 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

From article <714936705@pike.cs.duke.edu>, by srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate):
> In article <1992Aug27.154754.20355@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>
>>Learn to live with jerks. It's the real world.
> 
> Unfortunately, this is true --- many of the jerks get through.  What
> I was saying is that they shouldn't.  Wouldn't it be nice if all
> tenured faculty were also decent human beings?  If a school tries to
> keep jerks out of its tenured faculty, I say "more power to them"!

Could you please give us a formal and generally acceptable definition of a
"jerk"?
I am afraid that you don't understand what tenure is about. Its purpose is
to make sure that you are free to do your own favorite research and voice
your favorite opinions without being afraid that one of your bosses may
call you a jerk and force you to do something different. Therefore, the
quality of research and teaching is (in principle) the primary objective.
From your enthusiasm towards eliminating all jerks from the universities
it seems to me that you have some simple and universal criteria of
identifying them. Would you mind sharing them with us?

===============================================================================
    Pawel Gburzynski, Associate Professor, Department of Computing Science
           University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta CANADA  T6G 2H1
    e-mail: pawel@cs.ualberta.ca, tel: (403) 492-2347, fax: (403) 492-1071
===============================================================================
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write to league@prep.ai.mit.edu
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.research