Slashdot Mirror
A Torrid Tale of Plagiarizing Paleontologists
its hard to think of writes "There's an interesting story up at Nature News about scientific ethics. It seems that while one group of scientists is figuring out details about aetosaurs (ancient crocodiles), another group in New Mexico is repeatedly taking credit for their work and naming the new animals they 'discover'. It also looks like the state government, which has been asked to intervene, is trying to sidestep the issue. 'The New Mexico cultural-affairs department, which oversees the museum, conducted a review of two of the instances last October and concluded that the allegations were groundless. But some experts call that review a whitewash, claiming that it failed to follow accepted practices of US academic institutions faced with claims of misconduct. Now all three cases are before the Ethics Education Committee of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, a professional organization based in Northbrook, Illinois, which is awaiting responses from the New Mexico team before making a ruling.' How widespread is this kind of thing?"
If anyone is guilty of misconduct, it's these jackasses publicly accusing specific individuals of plagiarism on such an obviously bogus basis.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I am not a paleontologist, but I am versed in the debates over nomenclature etc. I would have to say I would take a dim view on somebody else publishing a formal name based on research that I had done and just haven't got around to publishing formally. If nothing else, it's an ethical debate. On the other hand, if the Mexico people publish and formally describe and name some unknown species based on someone else's findings, then this can be debated and overruled. If paleontology is anything like botany (I am involved in plant systematics) then I am sure that governing bodies of nomenclature can overrule the Mexicans descriptions (and names). From the article it doesn't seem they have the type specimen, and it seems obvious that the doctoral students first reported (and informally described) the species. If anything it brings into question the NMMNHS's credibility. As the article said:
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature says scientists must not name species if they know a competing scientist is in the process of doing so.
Good luck, he's "authored" over 1000 papers! Yes, that's one THOUSAND: http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/01/aetosaurs_and_whistle-blowing.php
How on earth did they get enough reliable data to come up with such a figure?
Ironically, publishing those findings will likely make them slightly more correct.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I recall Tom Lehrer's "Plagiarize" more that 40 years ago
Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize...
Only be sure always to call it please, "research".
The parts of the ICZN ("the code") you refer to are recommendations listed in the Appendecies as Appendix A. The recommendations in Appendix A (Code of Ethics) are RECOMMENDATIONS and not part of the actual rules. Thus, unethical behavior does not technically violate the rules, only the spirit of the rules.
A famous case of "stealing" the original description is the case for the description of the second living coelacanth from Indonesia, originally discovered by an American but published first based on scales stolen from the specimen by a French worker (probably with an Indonesian accomplice). This nomenclatural act (publication prosing a new name) was challenged by many ichthyologists worldwide, who likewise took "a dim view" of such behavior, including many other French workers who saw the injustice of this. However, the ICZN had no basis to overturn the name proposed on the basis of scale morhology, regardless of how illicitly obtained because the "theft" did not explicitly violate the rules.
This may seem unjust, but the Commission hardly has the time or resources to rule on nomenclatural issues, much less judge the ethical standards of fellow scientists.
The rules of priority can only be overturned in cases where an older name has not been used as valid since 1899 and where uses of the junior synonym can be shown to have been used a definite number of times over a definite period of years (See Arcticle 23.9.1). That is in cases where use of an older name would upset prevailing useage
However, while the French worker's name will in perpetuity be attributed to the French author, for all practical purposes the French worker destroyed his good name (assuming it once meant something to him) by his actions and will in perpetuity be associated with his egregeious and unethical behavior.
Possibly Botanists who have their own set of rules may have arrived at a different outcome (I am not familiar with the the rules for Botanical Names). It would be interesting to know.