[meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl

From: MexicoDoug_at_aol.com <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Sep 15 14:15:14 2005
Message-ID: <fd.1c0b81a2.305b141b_at_aol.com>

Hello Sterling, Rob, Paul and others following the astronomical brawl,

The Andalucian Astrophysic's webpage of discovery was suspiciously removed
from the internet, but the cached version from August 16, 2005 is still
ethically:) available at the following web address, along with the first English
explanation given by Ortiz of the Spanish team. Even if you have condemned him
to die in academic hell, it is worth seeing the page alone just to see the
gif image of the disputed discovery moving through the stars, along with the
orbit he independently calculated from his prior images:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:QJqYiiZyE84J:www.iaa.es/~ortiz/brighttno.h
tml+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

When participating in a brawl, it is always a good idea to see both points
of view, even as you throw your punches at the other side. There has always
been a great deal of resentment, especially heard from the Spanish in the
spanish-language astronomy discussion groups against those who hoard information
for a long time. Part of the equation I believe is large aperature and
instrument envy. Part is an opinion of academic greed. There are no patents,
though, as science doesn't wait for egos, just information...

There is so much these lesser known but expert groups have to offer, and
many consider themselves just as good or better, just frustrating victims of not
having a big enough budget. Mike Brown acknowledged that he took a
calculated risk and lost initially. While the ethical can of worms is difficult
here, I would interpret that as Mike Brown accepting that first publication of
orbit trumps, which he decisively proved he believed by releasing the other two
immediately. I don't believe Mike's original congratulations to Ortiz were
genuine in view of this. I believe he was setting Ortiz up from the start.
Sterling - did you consider that as your jaw dropped about the ease of
validating IP addresses? And I would congratulate Brown on that strategy as he
minimized his mudslinging until it counts. And...from Brown's point of view
Ortiz really deserves it! No doubt! Hopefully for Ortiz, there are no politics
of joint projects that the Director of his institution will have to weigh in
the investigation.

Just as Mike Brown comments in his defense against the allegedly
manufactured argument of withholding discovery information, that he wants to release it
as a complete, well done job, because he dedicates his career to this and he
deserves that payback, other less financially endowed groups see it
differently - using the same logic. "I've dedicated my entire career to this, can
make plenty of contributions, (and I am better than them if I had those
resources) but that group won't even leave the crumbs." So, because they are greedy,
the rest of the world stays behind in a vicious circle in which their
resources get better while I can't even get someone to clean the grit in our scopes
 optics. He worries about his career as if this discovery jeapordizes it -
well who speaks for us?

I have to say, I think Ortiz wins the "dedicating my career argument" hands
down. It is an insensitive argument on the part of Mike Brown. But that
still doesn't make Ortiz right to do what he did. The real question is the
ethics of alledgedly using clues from totally publically available but
intentionally coded information by a group flagrantly flaunting their work on the
internet and to "peek the interest" of fellow astronomers, as is perfectly
legitimate and done by many, but still withholding it - a group with vast resources
where the resources are so much greener on the other side of the fence or
pond. And not giving them credit for sticking their foot in their mouth and
being spoofed. This inequity is what rubbed Ortiz' group the wrong way, I'm
betting.

When NASA, or the Japanese, or Europeans photograph new features in the
Solar system, they release something to keep everyone busy quickly, although
plenty of team scientists would probably like more time. That sets a different
standard and expectation and creates a different basis to judge ethics. And
in questions of national pride, much has been acquired by sleuthing around and
 little credit has been awarded nor demanded.

Now, in meteoritics, suppose one of the top hunters/traders starts mapping
out a strewn field and emptying it of everything quietly, and plans on waiting
at least two years before submitting it, although they just can't resist
saying "I have a new achondrite like nothing previously seen". But suppose also
that the person's guide publishes on the web all of the locations of the
expeditions. Then suppose someone with a Sterling reputation comes along
working the thankless job in that area, and puts two and two together as well, and
figures out the same location that the other is vacuuming up everything with
their meteorite hunting Batmobile, while our guy is stuck with a magnet glued
to a stick to prospect for an achondrite...He goes, finds a few, and hastily
submits it to the nomenclature comittee with the coordinates explicitly
stated and classification done, making no mention of the other Haag-class
competitor. The original "private discoverer" cries "FOUL!". You trespassed on MY
strewn field and never even gave me credit. I was going to announce it in 6
months when nothing was left to learn because I have invested a great deal of
my resources in this and that is "how it works."

To which our underdog guy responds, "Go jump in a lake, I got my first
complete stone, classified it, and disclosed its location. What's in your head
doesn't concern me. We all know your practices and fat budget, and we really
think you are fantastic scientists - so chalk this one up as a reminder that
you don't own the universe just because you have the biggest network of peons
and vehicles and greed. And I have nothing else to say to you, so bug off."

"I demand you explain to me if you looked at my travel agents public records
to find that stone," responds the miffed world leader. "Now you have ruined
the science because we were sloppy and everyone else can find it and we
can't finish the job we started, nor get a monopoly on the stone, and be in a
position to trade for the crown jewels of other museums, nor monopolize
distribution to collectors.."

"How it works? Yeah, right. No further response." In private to his
accomplices "We calculated the orbit and made it public, the rules of the process
- he screwed up from greed. And he is not happy to be a footnote as having
been acknowledged as privately discovering it first. With all the science he
has done, and will get credit for, why can't he be happy with that? It is
not like his career depends on it. The fact is I was in the area too and here
are my plates to prove it. The orbit was calculated from independent images,
and how I saw the jumping dot on my images is not his concern, it is the
concern of the guy who writes the blink software. This is not about blink
software.

Finally my opinion, while I hope Ortiz comes clean, I appreciate the gif
image from Ortiz as it was my first glimpse of the object. Ortiz released the
first orbit. The answer is that the discoverer ought to be selected just as
he was for Neptune (How exciting to be living that in our lifetime again - I
used to read about it and marvel at the good old days), but this time the
circumstances carefully documented for posterity with no hard feelings and snubs
be immortalized. And the covetted right to name it something besides the
Easter Bunny or Santa Claus? A name selected by Ortiz and Brown together. If
they can't agree, it remains without a name until after they pass on at which
point the IAU selects a name, since by then they ought to figure out what
sort of beast it is...

Saludos, Doug


====================
Paul H. wrote:
Darren Garrison posted:

"September 13, 2005
One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
By DENNIS OVERBYE
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/13/science/space/13plan.html?pagewanted=all
"

Related web pages are:

The discovery of 2003 UB313, the 10th planet.
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/

What is the real story about the hasty announcement
and the reports of "hacking"?
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/#hack

The electronic trail of the discovery of 2003 EL61
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ortiz/

Best Regards,

Paul
 
Received on Thu 15 Sep 2005 02:14:51 PM PDT