[meteorite-list] re: One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
From: Marco Langbroek <marco.langbroek_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun Sep 18 07:30:41 2005 Message-ID: <432D4FDE.5080105_at_wanadoo.nl> Sterling wrote: > Marco calls Brown's observations "unpublished" > and "unreported" yet also refers to a "published" > abstract of Brown's and to the "publicly accessible > website." If so, there's a reason that that the law > refers to "publishing" on the web. To place anything > on the web is to PUBLISH it, legally. So, we are > drawing a line here that weaves in and out among > various definitions of "publish," and that line is not > a straight line. Is the criterion peer-review alone? > Not to the world at large... In solar system minor body research, discovery credit is given based on who first reported astrometry for the object. And Brown et al. DID NOT REPORT ASTROMETRY. In fact, their abstract gives very little information. From the abstract alone it is not possible to identify their object with 2003 EL61. Only by combination with the accessed telescope logs, is it possible to *suspect* that it is 2003 EL61 because those logs point to an object in the same area. Those telescope logs represent a grey area. Their status is not clear at all. They appear to be public, but where they meant to be so? Given it is established rule that it is the reporting of astrometry that counts, there is nothing improper about Ortiz et al getting the discovery credit, even if they suspected Brown et al. migh have been observing the same object. There is no grey area regarding that. MPC/IAU rules are clear in that. Brown et al. made a conscious decision when deciding to not yet report astrometry. They had their reasons for that (which were valid), but they knew the risks. When somebody else observes the same object and reports astrometry, you are outdone, and only can blame yourself in this case. About the DSP abstract status: note that there are scientific journals that do not accept references to meeting abstracts, as they do not consider it a proper publication. With further regard to the DSP abstract, I will let noted minor body astronomer David Tholen answer that one further. Below statement by Tholen comes from yesterdays MPML list edition: Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:58:32 -1000 (HST) From: Dave Tholen <tholen_at_IFA.Hawaii.Edu> Subject: Re: Letter from Ortiz " 1. DPS abstracts are not refereed. 2. The old rule of thumb is that you publish enough information so that somebody else can reproduce your results. Could anybody have reproduced the reported results, or even have pointed a telescope at the object, based on the information in the abstract? The appearance of the abstract being the first public information on the object therefore is insufficient to claim discovery credit. If that wasn't the case, then we could have a case in which a person writes an abstract claiming discovery of an object larger than Pluto, and then waits around until somebody else actually publishes positions for such an object, and then claim that the object they were talking about in the abstract was that one. There's a good reason why the reporting of the astrometry is a critical part of the discovery claim. " (David Tholen, MPML message 17 Sep 2005) What has been happening, is that Ortiz et al. have been accused, rather violently, of scientific misconduct (note the word 'scientific' here, meaning: according to scientific rules of conduct). Scientific misconduct would have been the case if they would *not* have known their images contained 2003 EL61 *before* they accessed the SMARTS telescope log through the internet. But if they discovered the object themselves on their images and then found out about the internet telescope log when trying to find some more information on an unidentified object (it was: only an unofficial internal designation was mentioned in the DSP abstract, no location and no orbit data too) briefly mentioned in an abstract that seems similar (in terms of: being big), they did not break any rules of scientific conduct at all in the rest of their actions. Even when they might have strongly suspected (as was the case here) it *could* be the same object. It was Brown himself who (again: for valid reasons, so I am not *blaming* him) has been withholding the pertinent information for anyone else to identify an object with their object. You cannot transfer any kind of blame for that to Ortiz et al. And anyone who feels that Ortiz et al. *did* not know their images contained 2003 EL61 *before* they accessed the SMARTS telescope log through the internet, should *prove* that before that accusation is accepted. That is the norm in both science, and western society. Untill that proof is provided, I hold Ortiz et al. as innocent. Also because their version of the story is not something highly unlikely: it is very plausible, it would be an understandable sequence of events and actions. - Marco ----- Dr Marco Langbroek Leiden, The Netherlands Volunteer image reviewer Spacewatch FMO Project NEAT archive hunter Admin FMO Mailing List e-mail: fmo-admins_at_freelists.org private website http://home.wanadoo.nl/marco.langbroek FMO Spacewatch Project page: http://fmo.lpl.arizona.edu/FMO_home/news.cfm FMO-mailinglist website: http://home.wanadoo.nl/marco.langbroek/fmo.html ----- Received on Sun 18 Sep 2005 07:30:38 AM PDT |
StumbleUpon del.icio.us Yahoo MyWeb |