HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 890707p@ace.acadiau.ca (GLENN G. PARSONS)
Subject: Birnboim at the U.of Ottawa
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:50:15 GMT

I need Dr.Birnboim's address at the Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre at the 
University of Ottawa.

         Thanx in advance...
           Glenn G Parsons
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: lwtsai@utkvx2.utk.edu (Liang Wu Tsai @ U. of Tenn., Knoxville)
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:17:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.165852.2971@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes...
>In article <714926508@pike.cs.duke.edu> srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate)
>writes:
>>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?
> 
>     According to the CBC, he had been suspected once of bringing a gun
>to a faculty meeting and detained by Concordia security, but no weapon
>was found when he was searched.  The interesting unanswered question is
>why did his colleagues ever think he would bring a gun to a meeting?  He
>must have made threats of some sort, but no one has said anything about
>this that I have heard.
> 
>				Marc R. Roussel
>                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca

As I rememberd, Dr. Fabrikant mentioned this incident in his posts. He also
gave his own reasoning.  I hope can hear what Condorida side said about this.

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 16:58:52 GMT

In article <714926508@pike.cs.duke.edu> srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate)
writes:
>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?

     According to the CBC, he had been suspected once of bringing a gun
to a faculty meeting and detained by Concordia security, but no weapon
was found when he was searched.  The interesting unanswered question is
why did his colleagues ever think he would bring a gun to a meeting?  He
must have made threats of some sort, but no one has said anything about
this that I have heard.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
From: rsherme@diamond.nswc.navy.mil (Russel Shermer (R43))
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: fyi #121: Applied Physics Funding in Inflation-Adjusted Dollars
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:28:40 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



Applied Physics Funding in Inflation-Adjusted Dollars

FYI No. 121, September 4, 1992

Last week we published tables, obtained from the National Science
Foundation, showing federal funding for physics, astronomy, and
geosciences for the years 1969-1991 (see FYIs #116, #117.)  A
number of readers expressed concern that the tables, which were not
adjusted for inflation, presented a misleading and overly
optimistic picture of physics funding.

In response to this concern, and because we agree that
inflation-adjusted numbers are more informative, we have used
deflators supplied by NSF and have calculated the amounts in
constant (1987) dollars.  The amount of federal funding for each
year was divided by that year's deflator to obtain the new number.
We have also updated the years 1990-1992 to represent NSF's most
current figures.  The amounts for 1991 and 1992 are still only
estimates.

This FYI shows federal support for applied research.  FYI #120 gave
the comparable amounts for basic research.  As in FYIs #116 and
#117, the amounts shown include federal funding to all agencies.

              APPLIED RESEARCH FUNDING, 1969-1992
                   (in thousands of dollars)

          Physics        Astronomy      Geosciences
1969      604,007        45,310         194,102
1970      623,789        16,558         215,895
1971      489,956         7,705         218,013
1972      554,133        19,723         246,144
1973      478,526         3,998         220,005
1974      453,758         6,215         175,997
1975      453,932        11,120         216,730
1976      626,363         6,117         256,652
1977      720,199         7,194         254,081
1978      711,160         6,327         287,470
1979      752,421         5,848         310,572
1980      728,806         8,857         288,212
1981      784,749         8,745         259,616
1982      981,169         5,590         215,522
1983    1,148,543         3,390         178,402
1984    1,007,154         3,015         177,193
1985      907,700        14,914         189,774
1986      826,359        15,558         183,714
1987      781,356        17,687         175,564
1988      742,822        11,883         168,191
1989      734,976        15,981         192,042
1990      692,814        15,278         196,493
1991      651,936        17,364         214,982
1992      760,135        20,392         192,947

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(202) 332-9662
##END##########
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: parker@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Jim Parker)
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Organization: University of Calgary Computer Science
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:31:11 GMT

>
>You couldn't have read his postings and not realized the man was
>unstable...  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?
>
Campus security stopped him entering a meeting some time ago, saying that
they had been informed that he was carrying a firearm. He was not, at
that time, carrying a weapon.


He was, by the documents sent at least, a good researcher. My question is,
if he was getting that kind of abuse WHO NEEDS CONCORDIA? Seems to me that
there are dozens of schools that would have him. Whatever injustices may
have been done in fact, and we know of none for certain, nothing would
justify the actions he took.


	Jim Parker
	Space Information Science Group		(403) 220-6784
	Department of Computer Science		(403) 220-6015
	University of Calgary			(403) 284-4707  [FAX]
	Calgary, Alberta, CANADA	parker@cpsc.ucalgary.ca  [internet]
	T2N-1N4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rim@csadfa.cs.adfa.oz.au (Bob McKay)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: co-authorship (was Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science)
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:14:18 GMT
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia

scollnik@acs.ucalgary.ca (David Peter Michael Scollnik) writes:

>  First of all , I agree  with you entirely.  However, what  about
>  those  instances in which  a student is attempting to publish an
>  outstanding result, yet one sufficiently controversial or within 
>  some area of research currently out of vogue. Although worthy of 
>  publication,  many mainstream journals  would reject the article 
>  out of hand  if the student had no  'reputation'  or  publishing 
>  record.  In these cases,  how would you  feel about a supervisor 
>  lending his  name  for co-authorship  in order  to  increase the 
>  chances of publication ? 
>       
Why not a covering letter from the supervisor, recommending the work?

-- 
Bob McKay		   	Phone:	+61 6 268 8169	    fax: +61 6 268 8581
Dept. Computer Science		Internet:	rim@csadfa.cs.adfa.oz.au
ADFA, Northcott Dve 		UUCP:...!uunet!munnari!csadfa.cs.adfa.oz.au!rim
Campbell ACT 2600 AUSTRALIA	ARPA:	rim%csadfa.cs.adfa.oz.au@uunet.uu.net
From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Date: 28 Aug 92 01:31:50 GMT
Organization: Cardiothoracic Imaging Research Center

In article <1992Aug27.154754.20355@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <714926508@pike.cs.duke.edu> srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate) writes:
>>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.

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

Incidentally, I noted your speculation (not quoted above) that the
only factors considered in the tenure review process are research and
teaching.  I suggest that you acquire a copy of the pertinent documents
that guide the process at Cornell; you might be surprised.

---Rsk
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med
From: bhjelle@carina.unm.edu ()
Subject: Re: Medics as scientists ?
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 23:06:31 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <28qpbz8c@csv.warwick.ac.uk> csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) 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?
>>	Only comments please -- no flaming.
>
>Interesting question. I'm a doctor (ex, actually, decided life was more
>important than work...),

What do you do now?

 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...   ;-)
>
This is a tired old canard. I suppose the best argument against
this is the innumerable stellar scientists who happen to be MDs,
including people like Dan Nathans, Harold Varmus, Hamilton Smith,
Mike Bishop, etc, etc (if you don't know who these people
are, check recent editions of Who's Who, or the roster of
Nobel Prize winners).

What always amazes me is the notion that the rote memorization
required for medical school somehow robs one of the ability to
have original thought. While such training may not provide
the purer intellectual challenges of graduate training, there
is a tradeoff in that one gains a more global perspective of
mammalian biology than might be obtained from many graduate
programs.

Furthermore, MDs interested in science can and do go on to
get extensive training in research at the postdoctoral
level.

Brian

Newsgroups: sci.research
From: kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi)
Subject: Cross-posting of Montreal News on Fabricant (long)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:27:41 GMT

Article 10577 of soc.culture.canada:
From: bhjelle@carina.unm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med
Subject: Re: Medics as scientists ?
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:49:48 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <30rpbfdh@csv.warwick.ac.uk> csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes:
>In article <56dnpxb@lynx.unm.edu> bhjelle@carina.unm.edu 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?
>
>[my stuff about the death of good minds...]
>>This is a tired old canard. I suppose the best argument against
>>this is the innumerable stellar scientists who happen to be MDs,
>>including people like Dan Nathans, Harold Varmus, Hamilton Smith,
>>Mike Bishop, etc, etc (if you don't know who these people
>>are, check recent editions of Who's Who, or the roster of
>>Nobel Prize winners).
>
>Come on! Even if you multiply that list by a hundred, you're still not talking
>about 1% of the number of doctors, in the UK alone. You're trying to draw
>conclusions from an insignificant sample. The *best* minds will out, no matter
>what, but the vast majority of doctors, along with researchers are not the
>best of minds. We can't all be in the top 1% of the top 1%...

Eh? I don't believe I claimed that a sizable fraction of all
physicians went on to be top scientists. I simply was making
the point that medical training does not preclude a productive
scientific career.

If all physicians were scrambling to be scientists, who would
take care of sick people?

>>What always amazes me is the notion that the rote memorization
>>required for medical school somehow robs one of the ability to
>>have original thought.
>
>True, but when you use that mode of thought for several years of clinical
>practise, it does damage. I hear this from other doctors, BTW, not from
>outsiders...

Yes, I would agree. If one wishes to be a funded and productive
scientist, one should refrain from prolonged, full-time medical
practice. There are only so many hours in the day, and you will
definitely fall behind in scientific knowledge.

>BTW, why does my post bother you so much?
>
It doesn't bother me at all. Why does  *any*  disagreement, however
mild, from your party line seem to bother you so much?

Brian
From: grogers@zeus.calpoly.edu (Gary Ray Rogers)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Headhunters wanted
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:24:36 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Friends,
	I am looking for names, addresses, and phone numbers
of recruiters / headhunters in the material engineering research
field.  Hopefully in the west coast or mountain states.
Please e-mail to this address and I will post all of them at once.
Thanks
Gary Ray Rogers

PS I am looking for a job, my resume is posted in misc.jobs.resumes.
-- 
 			      grogers@zeus.calpoly.edu
Gary Ray Rogers			(805) 544-4321
PO Box 12909
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406		
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: WANTED: "Offical" rules of authorship
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:11:33 GMT

The official (set forth in a NASA SP) rules on authorship at NASA
state that "In papers of joint authorship, the authors' names appear
ina sequence that will, in general, indicate the amount of
responsibility assumed for the joint effort; that is, the first-named
author should be the chief contributor, and other names should follow
in the order corresponding to their respective contributions."

I should also mention that NASA employees are never mentioned in
Acknowledgement sections; they're just doing their jobs, so such
mention is not appropriate.  I was allowed an Acknowledgement section
in one (of 15 or so) papers to refer to the US Navy's providing a
tanker airplane for our experiment, but this would have been improper
had another NASA center provided the tanker.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous
Newsgroups: sci.research

I seem to be missing some of the postings that are taking place
in sci.research regarding the Fabrikant affair.  But anyways,
I stand in defense of the Doctor's complaints, but not his methods
of dealing with the perpetrators (if accusations are true).

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.
From: skea@vast.unsw.edu.au (Alan Skea)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Fabrikant affair
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:02:55 GMT
Organization: University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia

I haven't yet seen mention of the names of the victims.  Does anyone
know?  Was it the people who Fabrikant claimed were getting a free
ride on other people's research?  Or were they just random?  If anyone
has a newspaper account that they could transcribe and post I would
be grateful.

Alan Skea.
From: alexa@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alexander Anger)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:00:47 GMT
Subject: Re: A question of attitude (was Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part LXIX) )
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: sci.research

I just started reading some of the postings originally written by
(from what I recall accused of murder) Dr. Fabrikant.  You may
not have been aware of the fatal shootings in Concordia U. last
week, so I will forgive your rash claim of these postings being "shit".
I find it very interesting what motivated a man of rather high
intellect to stoop to such an extreme course of action.  "A raw
deal" is not exactly what I would call the accusations he makes
against the administration of Concordia, and more importantly
against the scientific community as a whole.  Anyone who has ever
worked in late 20th century scientific research must surely be
aware of the increasing "politicization" of all fields contained
therein.  The gross mismatches between "work contributed to 
society" and "benefit derived from society" are becoming staggeringly
commonplace, and are not at all limited to stock brokers, bankers,
lawyers, insurance executives and realtors.  Where other than
"sci.research" do you think should such a discourse take place?
Is research exempt from the politics of research?  Anyways,
it appears that Dr. Fabrikant is in jail, and that the postings
are being made on his behalf by like-minded individuals.
So, please give the man a break (he'll be spending some years
in jail) and let him address this forum with issues that affect
all readers thereof.
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Darrell Raymond)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:46:38 GMT

  I fully agree with William Skelly's sentiments re: authorship being
an important component of scientific publications.  I have a few comments 
on his arguments, however:

> 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_

  The first meaning given by the OED to "author" (as a noun) is "The person 
who originates or gives existence to anything."  Note that the person who
actually writes the paper is not necessarily the one who gave existence to
the ideas in it.
 
> 2. "honesty" --
	.
	.
>     this is deadly serious.  Not only is it dishonest to put
>     your name on a paper that you did not help write, its bloody
>     stupid, it basically says to anyone who knows, that MY 
>     reputation really isn't worth a whole hell of a lot.

  Isn't it interesting that when papers are occasionally shown to be 
fraudulent, the sandbaggers always try to excuse themselves by saying 
they didn't really know what was going on?  This is like one of our
provincial cabinet ministers excusing herself for revealing secret
information by saying "I lied, I had no such information", and taking 
a lie detector test to prove it.

> 3. "authors" vs. "content" -- 
	.
	.
>    People doing the
>    hiring realise that there is a problem. Paper counting is NOT
>    always delivering them the best people. Soon ONLY the first
>    author will matter for the pramatic purpose of getting a job!

  Paper counting ISN'T going to deliver good people, even if only the 
real authors are listed.  Let's not defend accuracy in authorship by 
means of the current poor metric in judging researchers.  This is the 
place where content, not authorship counts, matters.

-Darrell.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sunday, 30 Aug 1992 00:02:29 CDT
From: M. Jacobs <U45301@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
 <1992Aug28.181507.25248@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

In article <1992Aug28.181507.25248@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai) says:

>        Actually, it was U. of Iowa, but I suppose that all those
>states in the middle of the country blur together.  That case was
>a Physics Grad. student who was pissed off about not winning some
>award or another for his research.

True.  One of the victims was a professional colleague of mine,
Dr. T. Anne Cleary.

Does anyone know who the shooting victims were in the Fabrikant
incident?

Sad things have to go this far.

Newsgroups: sci.research
From: probst@selkirk.sfu.ca (Scott Probst)
Subject: Re: A question of attitude (was Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part LXIX) )
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:43:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.200820.14330@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.180851.14861@news2.cis.umn.edu> gjnelson@ee.umn.edu (Grad student Greg Nelson) writes:
>>Dr. V. Fabrikant:
>>Please quit cluttering up this topic with all this crap.
>>Perhaps you got a raw deal at Concordia.  Deal with it!
>>
>
>Remember: Someday you may get the same raw deal from the same people,
>or others. It is an attitude like yours which enables them to do it.
>
>Dov
>
>

i agree. problems like this are among the worst faced by people within
the academic system.
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: pawel@cs.UAlberta.CA (Pawel Gburzynski)
Subject: Re: co-authorship (was Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:10:44 GMT

> I feel a researcher  (however senior he may be) should 
> produce single author papers (atleast one per one or two years of journal
> quality and not some survey papers).
> I usually don't give much regards to researchers who never
> produce single author papers. I personally feel guilty
> to include my name as a coauthor if I have no (or very little)
> contributions.  

I am afraid that any attempts to formalize honesty are bound to fail.
What about people who quite honestly operate in teams, e.g., due to the
nature of their research they simply have to operate in teams
(Experimental Physics) or simply operate in teams because this way
they are able to
raise the quality of their research. According to your suggestion, each
of them should be deemed a parasite.

The whole concept of evaluating people by the length of their
publication lists has done enough damage already. There are increasing
legions of "researchers" whose only area of expertise is growing their
publication lists. There are legions of young researchers afraid to
embark on an ambitious research project, if it is not clear that some
publishable results will show up immediately. Now you want to add yet
another rule that is going to kill (or seriously impair) genuine team
work. Everybody knows that with increasing specialization, the only
way to get a significant result (as opposed to a paper) is to do
something together. I believe that there should be absolutely no
penalty for a genuine multiple authorship, so that people are not
discouraged from working together.


==========================================================================
    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
==========================================================================