HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bwallet@apssgi.nswc.navy.mil (Brad Wallet)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Fabrikant, "mad" or "bad" ?
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:35:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center

In article <1992Aug26.221151.19695@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca>, tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis) writes:
|> Brad Wallet (bwallet@apssgi.nswc.navy.mil) ;
|> > I am still interested in whether the college is going to
|> > have to answer the charges made by Dr. Fabrikant.  I guess
|> > there is no disagreeing that his actions proved him mad,
|>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> If by "mad" you mean frustrated/angry/desperate to the point of
|> considering violence, then that's tautologically redundant, since it is
|> clear that his actions were preceeded by such consideration.  Most of
|> us have all been "mad" at some time in that sense.  The difference
|> between him and thee-and-me is the Grace of God and that he went from
|> consideration to action.  However, if you mean "mad" in the modern
|> forensic-psychiatric sense, you appear to have no grounds for such
|> a judgement.  He may have been "mad" (angry, etc.).  But he may also
|> be "bad" (morally wrong and responsible for his actions) and not
|> "mad" (psychotic, legally insane).


You are correct in stating that his actions may not be judged legally
insane, but since when is the legal answer the right answer?  People
in a sane state of mind do not do what he did.  I am reasonable certain
that if I were to go through my building with a pistol, I would, at the
very least, lose my security clearance.  No, his actions were not that
of a sane man in an insane position.  He was not sane.

All of this aside, it sure sounded to me as if Dr. Fabrikant may have
had some valid serious complaints.  Concordia sure owes the research
community an indepth (and indepedent) investigation into the goings on
in its ME department.

Incidently, anyone want to guess how many slimeballs analysed the
situation and decided that what all of this means is that Concordia
now has several open billets for tenure track faculty?

-------------------------------------------------
Brad Wallet                 Mathematician
bwallet@relay.nswc.navy.mil Naval Surface Warfare Center
(703)663-4950               (AVN)249-4950
DSMAC - "Tomahawk's Eyes"
"I can neither confirm nor deny that these opinions
are entirely my own and may or may not reflect those
of the US Navy." 
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Subject: Re: Concordia shootings
Originator: clewis@bwdlh118
Organization: Eeyipes!  Me?
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:54:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.035456.25427@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> rob@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Robert Robson) writes:
>The media has compared this case to the last shooting in Montreal
>of the women at Ecole Polytechnique.  This bothers me, since this
>was a (temporarily?) insane disgruntled employee rather than just
>someone with a desire to kill women.  I think comparisons with
>other disgruntled employees who have gone gunning for
>bosses/co-workers would be more apt.

I don't see why.  Fabrikant was someone who believed himself wronged
by some professors/administrators and reacted by shooting
professors/administrators at random (after all, only one of the people
shot was mentioned in his material).

Lepine believed himself wronged by "feminists" and reacted by randomly
shooting people he thought were feminists (choice was by the simple
expedient of the only physical difference he could discern - in his
insanity - being female.)

Is there a difference?  Not much.
From: srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:10:01 GMT
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Aug31.170648.17228@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <715275094@pike.cs.duke.edu> srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate) writes:
>>Your statements about the "goals of the University" are most interesting...
>>How are the goals of any University furthered by introducing a personality
>>that is harmful to the work going on there? 
>
>You chose to omit the first part of my posting, in which I said that
>what appear to some faculty  as disruptive is actually constructive
>to teaching+research, and it is often made by innovative individuals,
>who are disliked by some faculty members. You did not counter my argument.

I'm trying to let this thread die, but I have to comment on this....
Being disruptive is rarely constructive to teaching+research, except to
the person who is being disruptive....  would you force a department
to take someone on who will further their own research by disrupting
the research of those that are already there?  Why is that single individual
more important than the department as a whole?  Clearly, no single
individual should be allowed to harm an entire department.

Back to reality and what really happens:  here at Duke (and most other
places, I imagine), the "department approval" part of the tenure process
is done by secret, unsigned ballot voting of the tenured faculty in
the department.  The faculty then could (conceivably) use whatever
criteria they want to make their decision --- the decision can be appealed
to the provost, but I believe that the department's decision is almost
always honored except in odd circumstances.

Again, the whole point is that the department should be able to choose
people that work harmoniously with the department.  The goal is to get
work (research and teaching) done, and what better way to ensure this?

-- 
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)
From: gwr@hedonist-1.lanl.gov (Graham W. Redgrave)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Medics as scientists ?
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:26:16 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <16268@pitt.UUCP>, geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes:
|> 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 cornered David Cox (MD at UC San Francisco who developed radiation hybrid mapping
techniques, apparently to the end of finding the loci for bipolar disorders) to ask
him about medical education at UCSF and its reputation for encouraging research
by its med students.  He talked (very humbly) about how he is a pediatrician doing
research in psychiatric genetics so that he could help people.  He impressed on me,
his intent I'm sure, that he is a doctor doing research as opposed to a scientist
doing research, and that one's motivation in being a doctor should be primarily to 
help people.  An interesting message to someone at the fork in the road to 
medicine or research.

|> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
|> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
|> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Graham Redgrave    |    --  I don't speak for the government, 
gwr@life.lanl.gov  |        but I wish the government would speak for me ...  --
From: b_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Brian Duke)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:17:49 +0900
Followup-To: sci.research

This is proving to be a most interesting thread. Some recent postings giving
the "rules" for medical journals hit the nail on the head. I want to 
introduce a different problem I have. It is quite common for our final year
B Sc students to do a small research problem. Often they start something off
which is then finished by me or by me and a collaborator from elsewhere or
by a graduate student. Their contribution is often relatively small as more
is done after the end of their project than during it. The same also holds
for students doing the Australian Honours year [B Sc(Hons) is a 4th year
after the 3 year B Sc, and consists in our case of 75% research and 25% 
courses.

Do we include their names or not? If we do not, as the rules might suggest, 
it smacks of a senior person doing down a junior. If we do, we might be 
including someone who can not take responsibility for the whole paper. I
include them. They need encouragement and I should not put them down. I try
to get them involved as much as possible in the writing of the paper, although
by then they have often graduated and left the university.

What do others suggest?
-- 
                  Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke)
School of Chemistry and Earth Sciences, Northern Territory University
        GPO Box 40146, Casuarina, NT 0811, Australia.
Phone 089-466702   FAX 089-410460    E-mail B_DUKE@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
From: d3a132@pnl.gov (Carl P Baker)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Naive Question about Publication Practices
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:41:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: oracle.1992Aug31.234134.10117
Reply-To: d3a132@pnl.gov
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories

In article 25308@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu, fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman) writes:

>as anomalous.  If the editorial board and referees of the journal are
>competent (and I assume that most are much more than competent), then is it
>not the case that they are capable of evaluating a paper on its merits
>alone rather than its origin?  In fact, to dismiss any result due to its
>origin rather than its content is a logical fallacy.  Educated people
>should know better.

This is true.  They should be (and usually are) capable of evaluating the
paper regardless of authorship.  This doesn't always happen.

i.e.  "What should be and what is ain't always the same"


-- carl

Carl P Baker
cp_baker@pnl.gov
509-375-2724

Disclaimer: I am not the official spokesperson for anyone.  For which
organizations that use spokespersons are profoundly grateful.
Xref: sparky sci.research:967 sci.med:16553
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med
Subject: Re: Medics as scientists ?
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:08:22 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK

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?
>	Only comments please -- no flaming.

Interesting question. I'm a doctor (ex, actually, decided life was more
important than work...), and often heard it said that clinical practice was
the death of many a good mind. The point is that medical training teaches a
way of thinking that is rigid and 'flowcharted', with little or no room for
innovation or originality. There certainly are doctors who have also been good
researchers (e.g. from my alma mater, Prof. Sir Stanley Peart FRS,
practising physician and dicoverer of this, that and the other...), but I
think they're probably in a tiny minority.

I'm hoping I got out soon enough...   ;-)

The Wisp.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
Xref: sparky sci.research:1047 sci.research.careers:940
From: gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan M. Gilligan)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:32:20 GMT
Followup-To: sci.research
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <1992Sep1.052718.14555@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au> wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug31.170026.1493@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
|>>     Remember:  Only one person, or at most two, can write the paper
|>>(disregarding proofreading and such activities); many can participate in
|>>the science.
|>
|>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.

However, given the interpretation most people give to the ``author
list'' versus acknowledgements list on contemporary papers, it would
be intellectual fraud _not_ to include in the ``author list'' everyone
who made significant contributions to the work. Thus, despite the fact
that only a couple of people put the words on the page, the only
reasonable way to give credit to everyone who made important
contributions to the experiment is to list them all as ``authors.''

Another system might work, but we'd have to change the way everyone
does things _and_ the way everyone interprets author lists. Moreover,
it would be necessary for future students to understand that there was
some date when things changed and that they should interpret author
lists of papers written before that date differently from those of
papers written after that date. Since there's a consensus today on
what constitutes authorship of a scientific paper, do we really need
to worry about changing it just to bring it closer to the meaning of
authorship in other fields? Should we lobby for changing the names of
quark properties because it's dishonest to talk about the color and
flavor of things we can't see or taste?

---Jon
-- 

Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.
From: rsherme@diamond.nswc.navy.mil (Russel Shermer (R43))
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: fyi #119: NSF Solicits Comments on New Strategic Plan
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:40:11 GMT
Organization: NAVSWC DD White Oak Det.

Posted for:
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Richard M. Jones
Phone: (202) 332-9661
Email: fyi@aip.org


NSF Solicits Comments on New Strategic Plan, Sets Meeting Dates

FYI No. 119, September 3, 1992


The National Science Foundation has announced the dates of three
public meetings "to initiate an examination of how NSF can best
meet the nation's challenges in research and education today and
for the 21st Century."  The foundation is also soliciting written
comments on NSF's future strategic mission.

NSF Director Walter Massey recently announced the formation of a
Special Commission on the Future of the National Science Foundation
(see FYI #115.)  Fifteen individuals will be appointed to the
commission in the near future.  This commission will hold three
all-day open meetings at NSF headquarters on September 17, October
16, and November 7.

NSF wants to hear from the science community about what its future
role should be.  An August 27 NSF announcement states:

"These meetings will focus on a broad range of questions implied by
the purpose of the Commission [see the first paragraph of this
FYI.]  Written public comments are solicited on two questions:

     "1.  National Science Foundation support plays an important
role in the health of the nation's academic system, which is the
source of new ideas and human resources in science and engineering.
How can NSF maintain and enhance the health of this vital national
resource?

     "2.  In light of the many changes in both science and world
affairs (such as the increasing inseparability of science and
technology, the rise of the global economy, and the end of the cold
war), should NSF build on its traditional mission by pursuing a
broader array of research and education objectives and doing more
to link academia and industry?  If so, what strategies could the
agency adopt to move in this direction?"

The announcement continues:

"Persons wishing to file written comments should mail or fax the
comments by October 15, 1992, to the NSB [National Science Board]
Commission on the Future of NSF, Room 546, National Science
Foundation, 1800 G Street, NW, Washington, D.C.  20550.  Fax #
202-357-7346.  E-mail: NSBCOMM@NSF.GOV (Internet) or NSBCOMM@NSF
(Bitnet).  Dr. Charles Brownstein, Director, NSF Office of Planning
and Assessment, is Executive Secretary of the NSB Commission."

It is also noted that further information about the Commission can
be obtained from NSF's Office of Legislative and Public Affairs at
202-357-9838.  E-mail inquiries can be sent to addresses listed
above.


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Richard M. Jones
(202) 332-9661
##END##########
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: druger@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Stephen Druger)
Subject: Re: WANTED: "Offical" rules of authorship
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:35:27 GMT

>In article <1992Aug31.133758.7921@unixg.ubc.ca>, keith@msmri.med.ubc.ca writes:
> Does anybody know of any rules and/or guidelines for authorship 
> written or endorsed by a recognized organization.  Such organizations
> would include funding agencies, research journals, universities, 
> governmental bodies, professional associations or any other 
> appropiate bodies.
> 
> Any information on how the rules and/or guidelines are enforced, 
> if at all, would also be appreciated.  If there 
> is enough interest I will post a summary of any e-mail I receive.
> 
> 
> Keith S Cover
> Physics, UBC
> Vancouver, BC
> Canada
> keith@msmri.med.ubc.ca 
> 
>---------------
>
>

     As far as any official rules for authorship in physics are
concerned, the relevant parts of the "Guidelines for Professional
Conduct" recently approved by the Council of the American Physical
Society are appended below.  They are taken from the January 1992 issue
of APS News 1, 3 (1992), and can also be found in an issue of Physics
Today that appeared shortly afterwards.  "..." denotes deleted
paragraphs dealing with other issues--- Steve Druger

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

"PREAMBLE
              ...

The following are minimal standards of ethical behavior relating to
several critical aspects of the physics profession.


              ...


B. Publication and Authorship Practices

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant
contribution to the concept, design, execution and interpretation of
the research study.  All those who have made significant contributions
should be offered the opportunity to be listed as authors.  Other
individuals who have contributed to the study should be acknowledged,
but not identified as authors.  The sources of financial support for
the project should be disclosed. "

              ...

--------------------
From: CDF1@psuvm.psu.edu (Carl Fago)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:28:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92239.162802CDF1
Organization: Penn State University

I would say that the truth lies somewhere in between the two stories.

Unfortunately, Dr. Fabrikant has taken the rout to eliminate any possible
sympathy for himself.

I have to admit that he sounded a tad unstable in his letters and I am still
trying to figure out how he can be found in contempt of court for bringing
a lawsuit.  Sounds like he didn't get legal advice before continuing...
something he maybe should have done a long time ago.

 *-=Carl=-*  INTERNET - cdf1@psuvm.psu.edu    | Be wary of strong drink.     |
             DELPHI - WULFGAR  GEnie - C.FAGO1| It can make you shoot at tax |
 Carl Fago   State College, PA                | collectors -- and miss!      |
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: JRBANGA@poppy.ucdavis.edu (JULIO RODRIGUEZ BANGA)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: More thoughts about Fabrikant
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:02:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, Davis
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20



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

>........................previous text...............
>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!

 What I've read in the postings is that when he *stopped* putting their names
in the papers, then they mistreated him more than ever.
 
 *Many* young researches around the world are not *explicitely* told to put
 their bosses' names in their papers, but they know very well what could happen
 if they don't.  (Fortunately, that's not my case).

 However, you're right in one thing ('this is common practice') but wrong in
 another ('doen't really hurt much'). Which means that we might be looking at
 the point of the iceberg.

 Does anyone dare to estimate how frequent are extortion situations like
 Fabrikant's?.  
 

>--
>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)


  Julio.
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: siva@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (siva muthaly)
Subject: International Marketing
Summary: ASEAN's future Trade Implication
Keywords: ASEAN, Trade, Malaysia, Australia
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:07:52 GMT

I am interested on any papers regarding Austrlia's trade with
Malaysia.  I have presented papers on "Malaysia: A Window into the
ASEAN for Australian Businesses" and another paper on "Business
opportunities for Australian Businesses in Malaysia and Singapore".
ASEAN's AFTA and its 40% local content for free access within the
trading BLOCK of ASEAN should be an eye opener for those intending in
reaching this market of 322 million people.  There is a potential for
businesses to take advantage by getting a "Foot in the Door" of ASEAN.

Please feel free to communicate with me on areas for joint research or
publication or general information and knowledge transfer.