Comments on: The Futility of … life, learning, and graduate advising https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/ Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:51:40 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8 By: Arkadaslik https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540313 Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:51:40 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540313 Criticism is not a bad thing in general.

]]> By: Carlos Daniel Llosa https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540312 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:56:54 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540312 “As far as technicians, I have seen many reasons to or not to include technicians (or undergrads or grad students), and usually it comes down to whether or not that person made a significant intellectual contribution that contributed in a meaningful way to the paper. Running the experiment only doesn’t count. Basically, as I understand it, if it’s something that anyone could have done (running the gel), then no authorship.”

Well, the point is that while it is true that anyone could do it, someone has to actually go and do it, and that person better get some darn credit for it. Of course running a gel shouldn’t make someone an author, but doing some of the experiments, even if it’s done without understanding what’s happening, and even if it could be done by properly trained monkeys, it is work being done, and shouldn’t be go without proper credit.

I guess some has to speak up for the rights of the working class (undergrads as me, that is).

]]> By: Comrade PhysioProf https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540311 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:18:24 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540311 Greg, you are totally fucking hilarious when you fuck shit up that you haven’t the faintest clue about. I am extremely glad that you don’t just stick to the youtube and celebrity death posts.

]]> By: horace https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540310 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:13:12 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540310 CT: You just keep doing that and your slave keeping overlords will be happy.

]]> By: CT https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540309 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:39:50 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540309 I hardly see giving the lab head senior authorship as unethical. In my field, it is generally understood that the first author is the driving force behind the project, doing most of the experiments and writing, and the senior author simply means “the person in whose lab the work was done”. At a minimum, they’ve provided space, equipment, and money to the project. No assumptions are made about how much more than that they’ve contributed, which will vary widely from project to project and from lab to lab.

]]> By: seviÅ?me https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540308 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:11:54 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540308 And even if only 1/4 of that 13% (round down to 3% just to be conservative) reject science because of religion, then that’s a HUGE number of scientists who allow religion to interfere with their judgment in science. Of course, if the number is only 3%, I wonder why the other 10% reject it if not religion. My guess is that my random low-ball figure of 3% is a large underestimate

]]> By: men in black https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540307 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:32:19 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540307 Time to squash the blogosphere.

]]> By: Nat https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540306 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:08:36 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540306 Clarity rules.

I think we’re all in better agreement on this point then.

The Science Blogosphere: Getting things done since 2009….July 2009….July 23rd, 2009 at 3:08 PM EST…

]]> By: Scicurious https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540305 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:59:19 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540305 Ah, we do indeed agree on that point. I misinterpreted your previous statement. I can safely say, though, that I have never seen that sort of thing get someone authorship. Most labs I know generally strive for the fewest possible authors, and someone who just let us use a mass spec would never make the cut. That sort of thing sounds pretty abnormal to me, though perhaps I just haven’t run across bad apples like that.

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540304 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:58:54 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/22/the-futility-of-life-learning/#comment-540304 Well, the main point of the post is not this issue of authorship. Not even close.

And certainly, it is not clear that this problem (which I re-state in a way to assess Scicurious’s level of disagreement with me which apparently we need to assay) is universal, tiny, important, or not important. I have a feeling that it is important but not ubiquitous. I think there are probably a lot of grad students who don’t feel comfortable bucking a system where they are participating in a lab or project where credit is, essentially, being stolen on a regular basis. So I think it is a problem that will tend to lie under the calm waters undetected (or at least protected from action) in many instances.

]]>