From: jules@rafos.UUCP (Julia Hummon)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science; therapy
Date: 30 Aug 92 18:06:30 GMT
Organization: School of Oceanography, URI, Narragansett, RI


I'm a gradual student in Physical Oceanography, about to comment on two
different (but related) threads in this newsgroup: author lists and
psychological wellbeing...



authorship:
>
>If everyone interprets the author list as meaning, ``All the authors
>made substantial intellectual contributions to this work, each
>understands this work in its entirety, and each takes full
>responsibility for its accuracy,'' that's one thing, and including an
>author whose only contribution was to secure funding would be
>dishonest. But if the custom in a field is to interpret the author
>list as, ``Each of the authors made some contribution to this work.
>Some thought up the experiment, some did the lab work, and some
>secured funding,'' then as long as everyone else in the field knows
>that this is what the author list means, where's the dishonesty in
>including the group leader?

I am coming to understand that the author list (order and quantity)
varies between fields.  I would assume that a person writing in a field
with slightly different authorship priorities than the one 'they grew up
with' (and presumably understand best) might have the potential to
offend if they didn't look into the local customs.

------------------------------
psychological wellbeing:

On a different note, regarding therapy, support groups, etc.  When I was
studying for my PhD Comprehensive Exams, my self esteem hit an all-time
low.  I kept looking for an objective opinion of me as a human being which
(a) I would believe and (b) which would validate my worth regardless of
whether I passed my comps.  To that end, I thought about the idea of
trying 'therapy' and knowing I would come in at some point in the dregs of
self-esteem/self-confidence I would then have the sought after 'objective
opinion' of the therapist.  

My university (this is the point, because this is probably like most
graduate student health coverage) gives a student 6 free (50 min)
consultations at the university health center during which time they
evaluate the student's mental condition.  If it is agreed by the student
and the 'mental health professional' that the student needs more
treatment, the health insurance purchased by the graduate student covers
$50 for each of 3 months of weekly visits to some other therapy.  

The catch is, if I were to decide that I wanted help changing my attitudes
about stress, work, and my worth as a human being, 3 months isn't enough.
Probably 6 months isn't enough, but under these health plans, I don't even
have the option, because they restart the clock every academic year, so
last year's June,July,August treatment becomes a 'PRE-EXISTING CONDITION'
and I can't just tack on Sept,Oct,Nov to get 6 months of continuous help.

My point is, if a graduate student were to try to alleviate serious stress
or mental anguish with the help of a therapist, they would be limited to a
relatively low-budget therapist, and only for 3 months.  

Luckily, I didn't feel as low as I thought I might, so volleyball and Star
Trek took care of it.  :)


Jules
-- 
Jules Hummon, Dept of Physical O.  |   INTERNET:    jules@rafos.gso.uri.edu 
Graduate School of Oceanography    |   
University of Rhode Island         |                                      
Narragansett, RI 02882             |   "How does this thing work???"
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med