Re: [meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Hi, Doug, It's clear you experience great sympathy for Ortiz. But I caution you to examine the evidence closely. The analogy you suggest for the Sterling meteorite hunter is not quite accurate nor apt. I hope you like lots of links, 'cause that's what we have here. Initially, suspicion fell on Jean-Claude Pele, because he hacked the Yale SMARTS site for the SMARTS pointing information for K40506A that same day (July 26). He even posted the SMARTS log information on the Yahoo Minor Planet Mailing List, but after 2003EL61 was announced, and a complete ephemeris of K40506A: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15142 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15143 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15144 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15145 People were immediately suspicious. The next message reply asks Where'd you get this data??! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15147 and Pele tells him how he hacked it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15149 Here is where he got them. These are the SMARTS observing logs. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/Jul/20050703.log http://www-astro.mps.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/Jan/20050125.log http://www-astro.mps.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/Jan/20050126.log http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/Jan/20050127.log http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/Logs/2005/May/20050505.log Here's his protestation that he wasn't the thief: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/15283 and he gets Brian Marston (MPC) to clear him. Obviously, he does not regard using these logs to make a discovery to be harmless, but is desperately concerned to establish that HE DID NOT do such a thing nor aid any one else to do it. The complete MPML posts were re-posted to Freelists by Marco Langbroek, a member of this list, if you want to see them all: http://www.freelists.org/archives/fmo/07-2005/msg00082.html Pele's innocent of discovery. He wasn't him. It was Ortiz and Co., using the IAA computer: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ortiz/ the same IAA computer used to report Ortiz' discovery. The SMARTS site was not secured nor password protected, nor is it now. Here's the SMARTS Consortium website URL: http://www.astro.yale.edu/smarts/ It's very open, but obviously intended for the use of the members of the Consortium. You can even access their UNIX directory list: http://www.astro.yale.edu/smarts/smarts13m/ There is no attempt to conceal the observing logs. On the bottom left are links to the nightly logs. And through the directory link you can get to the ccd processing logs as well. For example, here's the URL to the discovery night, or Brown's first observation of K40506: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM/ObsLogs/2004/May/ Click on 20040506 and the log will download. Of course it isn't called K40506A until later, but it's in there somewhere... The name K40506A isn't code as you called it, Doug. It's a field ID number for a thing that has no name and is being referenced for the first time; that's all. The number is merely the year,month,day of first sighting. Brown gave out that ID number in 2004, when he told the AAU that he would report on it at their September 2005 meeting with this notice: http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v37n3/dps2005/320.htm Teasing all this out was not easy. Yes, it was (unintentionally) accessible, but it is difficult and would yield usefull information only with a lot of work. You'd have to want it pretty bad, need it, in fact. Brown was too naive. Also, he doesn't seem to have been aware that Google indexes EVERYTHING, and that you could do what actually was done to him. He said: It's true that the information was available without breaking into any sites. It's also true that sometimes I don't lock the door to my house. I hope that people don't think it's therefore OK to come in and take my stuff. http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3526451 I have no idea why you think Brown is such a plotter, like his not criticizing Ortiz earlier, so he can criticize him more later. That's paranoid, Doug, really. Nor why you think his congratulations to Ortiz were not sincere? They were unqualified and open. He had no suspicions at this point because he was unaware that the observing logs had been accessed by anybody outside SMARTS. As for your suggestion that the log accesses are faked, Brown would have to know in advance when Ortiz would announce, an impossibility pretty much, don't you think? As you can tell, GOOGLE is the key here. Without it, connecting the AAU notice with the observing logs and the ccd processing logs (they are crucial too because they identify K40506A in the field coordinates), both of which are on-line, are useless to a competitor. As for envy and resentment, does that justify stealing somebody's else's observations? If Ortiz actually
[meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Darren wrote: Why not do the HONEST thing and go to Brown and say here, look at this data we have, I think we are looking at the same object. Why don't we pool our data and publish together? This happens sometimes when the peope involved know each other well. When this is not the case, it could be risky to do so. I agree the above is a sane thing to do if it concerned a colleague I know and trust. I disagree that not doing this would be dishonest, however. It is normal scientific conduct to report on your own data in the context of what has been *published* by others, and ignore potential unpublished materials. That's just the way it goes in science. Otherwise, things would get unworkable. In this case, it was even more simple. It concerned the report of astrometric data to the MPC, not publication of a paper. MPC rules are very clear: the first who reports astrometric data, gets credit, in the Minor Planet Electronic Circular that reports on the object in question. Brown et al. did not report to the MPC, Ortiz et al. did, so the latter gets credit. That's the way it goes for *ALL* newly discovered solar system objects. There's no reason why 2003 EL61 should be an exception. Considering Wallace and Darwin: there are science historians who feel that Darwin and some people supporting him did outmanouvre Wallace when they discovered Walllace was indepently arriving at an evolution by natural selection theory. - Marco - Dr Marco Langbroek Dutch Meteor Society (DMS) e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] private website http://home.wanadoo.nl/marco.langbroek DMS website http://www.dmsweb.org - __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Hi, Rob, List
No, Ortiz hasn't replied yet, even though you will note
Brown has been repeatedly asking him to explain since July
without any response from him, which is why Brown gave up on
trying to resolve things peaceable and private. Ortiz can
communicate with the NYTimes, though: I do not enjoy...
so much questioning. No, I'll bet he don't!
The reason why 2003 EL61 is very simple -- it's 100 times
brighter than 2003 UB313, even though the later is larger.
Ortiz' scope (a brace of small telescopes at the Sierra
Nevada Observatory, in Granada) couldn't pick up a 19th
mag object like 2003 UB313, so no way he could claim it!
Neither is the other one (I forget its number) bright
enough for Ortiz to observe... But 2003 EL61 is 16th mag!
The timing of the log accesses from Ortiz' OWN
COMPUTER make it crystal clear. It's a case of being
caught with your hand in the cookie jar, crumbs on
your face, smears of chocolate chips on your lips...
By all means, let us adopt the standards of the day:
the ALLEDGED hand in the ALLEDGED cookie jar is
all the ALLEDGED evidence for the ALLEDGED theft
of the ALLEDGED planetary discovery that an average
observer really needs to persuade one's ALLEDGED
common sense...
Yes, it is (just barely) conceivable that 2003 EL61
was discovered on July 25 by Mr. Santos-Sanz as a
slow-moving object on images taken in March 2003
and that Ortiz went to Brown's logs to verify that the
object he had just discovered was the object K40506A,
which Brown had ALREADY announced observations of.
Would that make it his discovery? Emphatically, No.
Yes, Ortiz had photographed (alledgedly photographed?)
the object in 2003, but did he discover that BEFORE he
accessed Brown's logs or AFTER? Remember, Brown has
already published on K40506A (without giving its sky
coordinates), so that photographing it would not constitute
discovery. It has, after all, been photographed since
1955 by a variety of scopes and observers. Galling, I'm
sure it was. ANNOUNCING makes it a discovery.
As the article says: Were he and his colleagues only
checking to see if Dr. Brown's object was the same as
theirs to confirm their own discovery? Or did they use
the information to find the object and beat the Caltech
team? Both actions would violate scientific ethics but
with varying degrees of seriousness...
Yeah, that's a very genteel way of putting it:
petty larceny versus grand larceny. Ortiz was just
checking those cookies, right? IF he discovered an
object and feared it MIGHT be K40506A, the thing
to do would be to have announced WITHOUT checking.
Then, if it turned out to be K40506A, he would have,
at the least, been listed as co-discoverer and probably as
principal discoverer, given that his was the shoestring
and brave effort at a small underdog observatory, etc.,
etc.
There's even a certain similarity to another discovery
story: Kansas farm boy after years of toil at discredited
observatory discovers new world! What Ortiz did ('cuse me,
ALLEDGEDLY did) was a foolish and stupid thing to do.
He could have played those cards so much better. You'll
recall that Brown immediately acknowledged him as
discoverer BEFORE his access was identified.
So I ask, in return, if Prtiz knew he had photographed
a heliocentric object, why did he go to Brown's logs
at all? Why not just announce?
Far and away the most likely sequence was his log
access, observation, then finding he'd already
photographed it, argh! then announcing. It must
have been frustrating, yes, but...
Or, perhaps the correct term for the offense is:
GRAND THEFT, PLANET.
Sterling K. Webb
--
Matson, Robert wrote:
Hi Sterling and List,
It may be premature to jump to conclusions about the true chain
of events and the reasoning behind them -- Ortiz hasn't responded
yet to the allegations, so it is quite possible that there is a
less nefarious explanation.
Two interesting facts to consider:
1. Ortiz's team DID observe the object on three separate nights in
2003. Either this is an extraordinary coincidence, or Ortiz has
been imaging huge swaths of the sky over the last 2-3 years.
(Such searches could not be confined to the ecliptic region
since this object is not in the ecliptic.)
2. Why steal 2003 EL61, when Ortiz could just as easily have
scooped the larger 2003 UB313?
--Rob
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
WHO KNEW there was so much drama in the lonely lives of the reclusive
astronomer?!
This one might even inspire a new Tom Clancey espionage book! ;]
I have little doubt that Dr Brown will eventually get the credit.
From: Sterling K. Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Matson, Robert
[EMAIL PROTECTED],'meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com '
meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:38:33 -0500
Hi, Rob, List
No, Ortiz hasn't replied yet, even though you will note
Brown has been repeatedly asking him to explain since July
without any response from him, which is why Brown gave up on
trying to resolve things peaceable and private. Ortiz can
communicate with the NYTimes, though: I do not enjoy...
so much questioning. No, I'll bet he don't!
The reason why 2003 EL61 is very simple -- it's 100 times
brighter than 2003 UB313, even though the later is larger.
Ortiz' scope (a brace of small telescopes at the Sierra
Nevada Observatory, in Granada) couldn't pick up a 19th
mag object like 2003 UB313, so no way he could claim it!
Neither is the other one (I forget its number) bright
enough for Ortiz to observe... But 2003 EL61 is 16th mag!
The timing of the log accesses from Ortiz' OWN
COMPUTER make it crystal clear. It's a case of being
caught with your hand in the cookie jar, crumbs on
your face, smears of chocolate chips on your lips...
By all means, let us adopt the standards of the day:
the ALLEDGED hand in the ALLEDGED cookie jar is
all the ALLEDGED evidence for the ALLEDGED theft
of the ALLEDGED planetary discovery that an average
observer really needs to persuade one's ALLEDGED
common sense...
Yes, it is (just barely) conceivable that 2003 EL61
was discovered on July 25 by Mr. Santos-Sanz as a
slow-moving object on images taken in March 2003
and that Ortiz went to Brown's logs to verify that the
object he had just discovered was the object K40506A,
which Brown had ALREADY announced observations of.
Would that make it his discovery? Emphatically, No.
Yes, Ortiz had photographed (alledgedly photographed?)
the object in 2003, but did he discover that BEFORE he
accessed Brown's logs or AFTER? Remember, Brown has
already published on K40506A (without giving its sky
coordinates), so that photographing it would not constitute
discovery. It has, after all, been photographed since
1955 by a variety of scopes and observers. Galling, I'm
sure it was. ANNOUNCING makes it a discovery.
As the article says: Were he and his colleagues only
checking to see if Dr. Brown's object was the same as
theirs to confirm their own discovery? Or did they use
the information to find the object and beat the Caltech
team? Both actions would violate scientific ethics but
with varying degrees of seriousness...
Yeah, that's a very genteel way of putting it:
petty larceny versus grand larceny. Ortiz was just
checking those cookies, right? IF he discovered an
object and feared it MIGHT be K40506A, the thing
to do would be to have announced WITHOUT checking.
Then, if it turned out to be K40506A, he would have,
at the least, been listed as co-discoverer and probably as
principal discoverer, given that his was the shoestring
and brave effort at a small underdog observatory, etc.,
etc.
There's even a certain similarity to another discovery
story: Kansas farm boy after years of toil at discredited
observatory discovers new world! What Ortiz did ('cuse me,
ALLEDGEDLY did) was a foolish and stupid thing to do.
He could have played those cards so much better. You'll
recall that Brown immediately acknowledged him as
discoverer BEFORE his access was identified.
So I ask, in return, if Prtiz knew he had photographed
a heliocentric object, why did he go to Brown's logs
at all? Why not just announce?
Far and away the most likely sequence was his log
access, observation, then finding he'd already
photographed it, argh! then announcing. It must
have been frustrating, yes, but...
Or, perhaps the correct term for the offense is:
GRAND THEFT, PLANET.
Sterling K. Webb
--
Matson, Robert wrote:
Hi Sterling and List,
It may be premature to jump to conclusions about the true chain
of events and the reasoning behind them -- Ortiz hasn't responded
yet to the allegations, so it is quite possible that there is a
less nefarious explanation.
Two interesting facts to consider:
1. Ortiz's team DID observe the object on three separate nights in
2003. Either this is an extraordinary coincidence, or Ortiz has
been imaging huge swaths of the sky over the last 2-3 years.
(Such searches could not be confined to the ecliptic region
since this object is not in the ecliptic.)
2. Why steal 2003 EL61, when Ortiz could just as easily have
scooped the larger 2003 UB313?
--Rob
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
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 __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
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=enie=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
[meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/13/science/space/13plan.html?pagewanted=all September 13, 2005 One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl By DENNIS OVERBYE Correction Appended When a group of Spanish astronomers reported in July that they had discovered a spectacular addition to the solar system, a bright ball of ice almost as big as Pluto sailing the depths of space out beyond Neptune, Michael Brown of Caltech chalked it up to coincidence and bad luck. His own group had been tracking the object, now known as 2003 EL61, for months but had told no one. He sent the leader of the group, Jose-Luis Ortiz, of the Institute of Astrophysics of Andalusia, in Granada, a congratulatory e-mail message. Now Dr. Brown has asked for an investigation of Dr. Ortiz's discovery, alleging a serious breach of scientific ethics. Archival records, he said, show that only a day before the discovery was reported, computers traced to Dr. Ortiz and his student Pablo Santos-Sanz visited a Web site containing data on where and when the Caltech group's telescope was pointed. The information in these observing logs could have been used to help find the object on the Spanish images, taken more than two years ago, or simply to confirm that both groups discovered the same object. Depending on what the Spanish astronomers did, their failure to mention the Caltech observations could be considered scientific dishonesty or even fraud, Dr. Brown suggests. In comments for his Web site (www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila),which includes a detailed timeline of the events surrounding the July announcement, he writes: It is not clear from the timeline precisely what Ortiz and Santos-Sanz knew and how they used the records that they accessed. They were required by the standards of science, however, to acknowledge their use of our Web-based records. In an e-mail message to Brian Marsden of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who is director of International Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Center, the clearinghouse for such discoveries, Dr. Brown wrote on Aug. 15, I request that Ortiz et al. be stripped of official discovery status and that the I.A.U. issue a statement condemning their actions. Dr. Ortiz did not respond to numerous e-mail messages and telephone calls. Last week in an e-mail message to Dr. Brown, Dr. Ortiz neither admitted nor denied looking at the observing logs. Instead he criticized Dr. Brown's failure to report discoveries promptly to the Minor Planet Center, saying that his penchant for hiding objects had alienated other astronomers and harmed science. And remember, he said in the message, which Dr. Brown provided to The New York Times, the only reason why we are now exchanging e-mail is because you did not report your object. But Jose Carlos del Toro Iniesta, director of the Andalusian institute, said in an e-mail message that he intended to investigate Dr. Brown's allegations, adding, I beg your understanding in separating clearly the institute as a whole from its individual members: the researchers' actions are their sole responsibility. The spectacular allegation has flummoxed the International Astronomical Union. Saying that he and his colleagues had never been fooled before, Dr. Marsden admitted that the I.A.U. had no protocol for adjudicating such a dispute. Dr. Robert Kirshner, a Harvard astronomer and the president of the American Astronomical Association, said, I don't think we have a method - other than public tantrums - to resolve these problems. The imbroglio illustrates the ethical dangers and pitfalls of doing science in the Internet age, where a little clicking can bring you a shocking amount of information about what your colleagues and rivals are up to. There is a long history of astronomers jealously guarding the coordinates of some celestial phenomenon while they try to figure out what it is, and of others trying to get in on the action. In 1930, when Pluto was discovered, the Lowell Observatory, home of the discoverer Clyde Tombaugh, withheld details of its location because they wanted to be the first to calculate its orbit. Matthew Holman, a Harvard planetary astronomer, said that in the old days when the logbooks were real books sitting by the telescope, some astronomers would write down fictitious coordinates and objects to cover their tracks. With electronic records, Dr. Brown said, It's important for scientists to discuss what's O.K. and what is not. Richard Pogge, an Ohio State astronomer who uncovered the apparent breach, said that scientists had long lived mostly successfully by a kind of honor system. Astronomers, he said, routinely serve on time allocation committees for telescopes and peer review panels without stealing one another's ideas. It allows us to have an open, collaborative community, he said. The idea that someone could abuse that openness, he said, goes to the whole idea of trust in our community. Dr.
Re: [meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Hi, All, Jay Leno loves to read those news clippings, you know, like the one about the bank robber who wrote his holdup note on the back of a deposit slip -- HIS OWN personal deposit slip with his name and account number on it, and who was surprised when he arrived home with the loot to find the cops sitting in his driveway waiting for him... Hard to imagine being smart enough to steal a planet but not smart enough to know about IP numbers. Doh. In particular, if one is going to use the internet for nefarious purposes, you ought to know about proxy server programs, not that the ruse would fool anybody, but it would make it unprovable without getting into the offender's hard drive... When the original story broke, it was pretty obvious who the logical intruder into the observing logs would have been, and I thought at the time, they must have traced the IP address right away. Wouldn't you? But, when nothing else was said... I figured Ortiz was just smart enough to have used a proxy server identity, but it seems not. His attitude seems to be that he was justified in doing so. Very strange. Sterling K. Webb --- Darren Garrison wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/13/science/space/13plan.html?pagewanted=all September 13, 2005 One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl By DENNIS OVERBYE Correction Appended When a group of Spanish astronomers reported in July that they had discovered a spectacular addition to the solar system, a bright ball of ice almost as big as Pluto sailing the depths of space out beyond Neptune, Michael Brown of Caltech chalked it up to coincidence and bad luck. His own group had been tracking the object, now known as 2003 EL61, for months but had told no one. He sent the leader of the group, Jose-Luis Ortiz, of the Institute of Astrophysics of Andalusia, in Granada, a congratulatory e-mail message. Now Dr. Brown has asked for an investigation of Dr. Ortiz's discovery, alleging a serious breach of scientific ethics. Archival records, he said, show that only a day before the discovery was reported, computers traced to Dr. Ortiz and his student Pablo Santos-Sanz visited a Web site containing data on where and when the Caltech group's telescope was pointed. The information in these observing logs could have been used to help find the object on the Spanish images, taken more than two years ago, or simply to confirm that both groups discovered the same object. Depending on what the Spanish astronomers did, their failure to mention the Caltech observations could be considered scientific dishonesty or even fraud, Dr. Brown suggests. In comments for his Web site (www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila),which includes a detailed timeline of the events surrounding the July announcement, he writes: It is not clear from the timeline precisely what Ortiz and Santos-Sanz knew and how they used the records that they accessed. They were required by the standards of science, however, to acknowledge their use of our Web-based records. In an e-mail message to Brian Marsden of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who is director of International Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Center, the clearinghouse for such discoveries, Dr. Brown wrote on Aug. 15, I request that Ortiz et al. be stripped of official discovery status and that the I.A.U. issue a statement condemning their actions. Dr. Ortiz did not respond to numerous e-mail messages and telephone calls. Last week in an e-mail message to Dr. Brown, Dr. Ortiz neither admitted nor denied looking at the observing logs. Instead he criticized Dr. Brown's failure to report discoveries promptly to the Minor Planet Center, saying that his penchant for hiding objects had alienated other astronomers and harmed science. And remember, he said in the message, which Dr. Brown provided to The New York Times, the only reason why we are now exchanging e-mail is because you did not report your object. But Jose Carlos del Toro Iniesta, director of the Andalusian institute, said in an e-mail message that he intended to investigate Dr. Brown's allegations, adding, I beg your understanding in separating clearly the institute as a whole from its individual members: the researchers' actions are their sole responsibility. The spectacular allegation has flummoxed the International Astronomical Union. Saying that he and his colleagues had never been fooled before, Dr. Marsden admitted that the I.A.U. had no protocol for adjudicating such a dispute. Dr. Robert Kirshner, a Harvard astronomer and the president of the American Astronomical Association, said, I don't think we have a method - other than public tantrums - to resolve these problems. The imbroglio illustrates the ethical dangers and pitfalls of doing science in the Internet age, where a little clicking can bring you a
