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Marco calls Brown's observations "unpublished"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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
-----
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
