Re: [meteorite-list] re: One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Sterling wrote: Marco calls Brown's observations unpublished and unreported yet also refers to a published abstract of Brown's and to the publicly accessible website.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
Re (addition 2): [meteorite-list] re: One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Sterling also wrote: Stoss uses NEAT data, DSS and POSS data, to refine the orbit. He never uses Brown's data? Wouldn't that help refine it? Not at all, because the telescope log data provide you with only rough telescope pointing positions, not the arcsecond accuracy object positions Ortiz' data, NEAT data, DSS and POSS provided. With the Ortiz, NEAT, DSS and POSS data available through Ortiz' and Stoss observing data and Stoss's image archive precovery activities, the addition of Browns/SMARTS telescope log data would not have improved the orbital solution at all (rather, it would probably have worsened it). The SMARTS log did not contain astrometry for the object, only rough telescope pointing locations. Yet, 20 minutes after the times of his own Mallorca observations and recovery of the object, someone at IAA is accessing Brown's positional data AGAIN. I am most curious. Why? Are they merely curious? At this point, they have discovery positions (2003), archival positions (NEAT, etc.), and current position (Mallorca) of their object. Why check someone else's data if you are not going to use it and claim that you are not even sure if it's the same object? As explained above, with the data they HAD at that time, Brown's data would not have contributed anything valid at all to what they already had. Hence, this MUST have been curiosity, yes. And understandable. There is that mysterious reference to an object that could or could not be the same. It is understandable that you compare the little that is known about that object to your data. In fact, with what orbital data they already have, they can easily determine from Brown's data accessed the first time that it IS the same. They could determine that it was very likely to concern the same object. Which is interesting, but holds no further meaning. Curiosity could very easily lead to further comparison. The fact that they accessed the data again after accumulating a much larger and much more accurate body of data themselves, points out that they did not acces the data in order to use it, but rather to compare. This strongly suggest the question behind this was: is it really the same object?. By contrast, if Browns data would have been the starting point for finding the object in the first place, they would not have had to question whether it was the same object For the rest, I refer to my previous mails. - Marco - Dr Marco Langbroek Leiden, The Netherlands Volunteer image reviewer FMO Spacewatch Project NEAT archive hunter Admin FMO Mailing List e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] private website http://home.wanadoo.nl/marco.langbroek/asteroid.html FMO Mailing List 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
[meteorite-list] re: One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Hi Sterling, Doug et al., This is rapidly becoming a highly convoluted history now, and I urge everyone to be very careful with damning judgements on either Ortiz or Brown. Initialy, I thought (based on the information provided about logged IP's etc.) that things were very wrong. Thinking it over and separating facts from assumptions, I however started to realize that scenario's were perfectly plausible which would clear Ortiz et al. from fraud attempt accusations. In fact, this is what I wrote early yesterday in a private message to A/CC editor Bill Allen when we were privately discussing the unheard of developments around 2003 EL61, and possibe scenario's about what could have happened as seen from various viewpoints: You find something in your data which suggest highly unusual characteristics (a +17.5 mag TNO, who would have believed that was possible before this find?). Being relatively unknown in the field, would you risk being laughed at? It would not surprise me if this is why their initial submission to the MPC did not lable it as TNO. It would make sense, when they would try to find out extra information about recent TNO finds. Reading the meeting abstract for which they submitted an abstract themselves, and which talks about the find of some very large TNO's, it would be natural they hit Google to see if they could find something more about it than just this abstract which gives little information. Then you find a publicly accessible website with apparently more info on those objects, such as positions. Accessing it, you discover to your dismay it seems to concern YOUR object. Now starts a process of check and double-check: is it reallly the same object? Yes, it seems so... So what do you do? Mind you, the status of Brown's discovery is * very unclear* at that point. No MPEC has yet been released for this object, it is not in the MPC TNO database, there is nothing official on it. If I were in Ortiz et al.'s shoes in such a situation, and knowing a discovery of this kind means a much better chance of funding for my research and position (which are always very dire here in Europe), I would not hesitate at all to go public at that point, formally claiming the, and my rightly independant, discovery with an MPC report leading to an MPEC as well as a public statement on the find, before the actual meeting on which Brown et al. might or might not give out more information. That you scoop Brown et al. is Brown et al's problem, it was their decision to not go public yet so their responsibility. I agree that they had good reasons to not go public yet (I do not agree at all with those who maintain their secrecy would somehow be wrong and anti-scientific, that is nonsense), but then they also knew the risks of that. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. The question then is: should Ortiz et al. have mentioned that Brown might have yet unreported observations on the same object? I do not agree at all with those who maintain they should have. These were unpublished data: the one single abstract for a meeting that yet had to take place (!) only mentions a name code, nothing there to identify this object with your object (or any other object for that matter). Scientificaly, they therefore do not yet exist. You can mention them out of courtesy, but there is no need to do so whatsoever. I am a scientist myself, and every scientist will be familiar with the situation that you publish something, and know through the grapevine that someone else is working on the same problem and might have yet unpublished results on this. If you would have to acknowledge this, scientific literature would be full of statements like: There are suggestions that Dr X and prof Y might have yet unpublished data on this same [insert subject]. Everybody would see how ridiculous this would be. In reality, you only mention this if you have private communications with these other researchers, you want to give them credit out of courtesy (and/or because their data strengthen your case) and they allow you to mention their data as a private communication. And there is no obligation to do so at all (as long as you do not use their results). Also note that I am talking of giving credit in scientific publications, announcements or meetings here. Ignoring other's work on similar objects/subjects is quite the norm in press releases for example. I know of no PR department of a scientific institution that does not do that. Note that here I assume that Ortiz et al. took note of, but did not *use* the data gleaned from the telescope log they accessed, other than to check against their own data. If the opposite was the case, the situation would be wholy different. Indeed, Ortiz et al then would have the obligation to credit Brown, and their actions would be scientific misconduct. And now, Ortiz posted this message yesterday (reproduced below) on the MPML list (I did not get to see it
Re: [meteorite-list] re: One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:05:15 +0200, Marco Langbroek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I were in Ortiz et al.'s shoes in such a situation, and knowing a discovery of this kind means a much better chance of funding for my research and position (which are always very dire here in Europe), I would not hesitate at all to go public at that point, formally claiming the, and my rightly independant, discovery with an MPC report leading to an MPEC as well as a public statement on the find, before the actual meeting on which Brown et al. might or might not snip The question then is: should Ortiz et al. have mentioned that Brown might have yet unreported observations on the same object? I do not agree at all with those who maintain they should have. These were unpublished data: the one single abstract for a meeting that yet had to take place (!) only mentions a name code, nothing there to identify this object with your object (or any other object for that matter). Scientificaly, they therefore do not yet exist. You can mention them out of courtesy, but there is no need to do so whatsoever. I am a scientist myself, and every scientist will be familiar with the situation that you publish something, and know through the grapevine that someone else is working on the same problem and might have yet unpublished results on this. If you would have to acknowledge this, scientific literature would be full of statements like: There are suggestions that Dr X and prof Y might have yet unpublished data on this same [insert subject]. Everybody would see how ridiculous this would be. 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 whole situation reminds me somewhat of the case of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. After Wallace found out that Darwin had been for years working on a similar theory to his, Wallace didn't sneak a look at a copy of Origin of Species (grabbing a few choice points from it for his work) then rush to press with his own theory. Darwin didn't try to crush him so that HE could publish first. The fact that Darwin's work later was the only one generally remembered is because Darwin did MORE work, and was more through and detailed about it: Read this excerpt for an article on Wallace, and see the similarities to this situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace Wallace had once briefly met Darwin, and was one of Darwin's numerous correspondents from around the world, whose observations Darwin used to support his theories. Wallace knew that he was interested in the question of how species originate, and trusted his opinion on the matter. Thus, he sent him his essay, On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type (1858), and asked him to review it. On 18 June 1858 Darwin received the manuscript from Wallace. In it, Wallace describes a novel theory of what is now known as natural selection, and proposes that it explains the diversity of life. It was essentially the same as the theory that Darwin had worked on for twenty years, but had yet to publish. Darwin wrote in a letter to Charles Lyell: he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters! Although Wallace had not requested that his essay be published, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker decided to present the essay, together with excerpts from a paper that Darwin had written in 1844, and kept confidential, to the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858, highlighting Darwin's priority. Wallace accepted the arrangement after the fact, grateful that he had been included at all. Darwin's social and scientific status was at that time far greater than Wallace's, and it was potentially unlikely that Wallace's views on evolution would have been taken as seriously. Though relegated to the position of co-discoverer, and never the social equal of Darwin or the other elite British natural scientists, Wallace was granted far greater access to tightly-regulated British scientific circles after the advocacy on his part by Darwin. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] re: One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl
Hi, All, Ah, opinion is such a flighty thing. I read Ortiz' declaration and it all makes perfect sense. He's a fine fellow, it seems, but... We often, deep in our concerns, follow a sequence of reasonings, all of which seems perfectly sound and proper from each step to each step, to the end, yet when an outsider looks at the completed action without knowing the steps, he may see things in a light that never was. Stoss uses NEAT data, DSS and POSS data, to refine the orbit. He never uses Brown's data? Wouldn't that help refine it? Yet, 20 minutes after the times of his own Mallorca observations and recovery of the object, someone at IAA is accessing Brown's positional data AGAIN. I am most curious. Why? Are they merely curious? At this point, they have discovery positions (2003), archival positions (NEAT, etc.), and current position (Mallorca) of their object. Why check someone else's data if you are not going to use it and claim that you are not even sure if it's the same object? Of course, with Stoss' work, they know its orbit as well as Brown, perhaps even better because they have archival positions which Brown appears not to have searched for. What do they need with Brown's data? To me, it seems inexplicable behavior in the context of their narration. In fact, with what orbital data they already have, they can easily determine from Brown's data accessed the first time that it IS the same. If for no other reason than this, one should always consider the appearances of things to others, whether an interested or disinterested party. It is merely wise to do so, as many a politician has discovered, often woefully. Marco says, Note that here I assume that Ortiz et al. took note of, but did not *use* the data gleaned from the telescope log they accessed... That, of course, is the tipping point issue, entirely and completely. Ortiz et al. assert it, or at least imply it; they do not actually address it directly. We must *assume* it or not *assume* it, and when that is so, one must expect different people to make different assumptions. Science can be quite as cut-throat as any other human endeavor, although one would never know it from the public image of scientists. There is a Nobel-winning scientist, in the past decade, in a field I shall not name, who is absolutely detested by the majority of workers in the same field for stealing others' work by a variety of means, by every means possible, in fact, countless thoroughly despicable behaviors. But, he got that prize... and probably for a theory that will be ultimately quite discredited. If Ortiz made some use of Brown's data he will not admit to, but really made the 2003 discovery, it is, to use an American expression, small potatoes. Myself, in his position, would have mentioned it. 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... Completely aside, that is why you aspiring authors should never put your great novels-to-be on your website. Technically, that is publication; and should a real publisher ever want it, you will find that you have reduced its value because they would be buying reprint rights, which are not worth the same as first rights. Just a tip... If I had been the SMARTS Consortium's webmaster, I would have told them to make the front end accessible, with the pretty pictures and the press releases, and to put the Consortium's business under 128-bit encryption and password protected. (It's never too late to do this, Mike Brown, if you're listening, and no trouble. If the tiny bank in a town of 1500 pop. can do it, so can Yale and CalTech...) Other scientists may airily say, O, free and public data, I found it on a website, but the law says copyrighted intellectual property... It's a question of which frame you view reality from. There are other approaches. The Lowell Observatory Deep Ecliptic Survey puts hundreds of KBO's in databases and literally begs for somebody to follow up on them. Many are lost again because there is no followup astrometry. Of course, an ecliptic survey would not have found 2003EL61 or 2003UB313 at all... We're just at the very first stages of exploring Trans- Neptunian space. Five or ten years from now, this may be largely forgotten in a splurge of discovery. I hope so, anyway. And I think there will be a splurge of discovery. When 2003UB313 was discovered, I posted a long (multi-part) post hypothesizing three logical categories or populations of planets: Terrestrial (differentiated rocky/ iron worlds), Jovian
