[meteorite-list] One Find, Two Astronomers: An Ethical Brawl

Thu Sep 15 14:14:51 EDT 2005

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=en&ie=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 hunting Batmobile, while  our guy is stuck with a magnet glued 
to a stick to prospect for an  achondrite...He goes, finds a few, and hastily 
submits it to the nomenclature  comittee with the coordinates explicitly 
stated and classification done, making  no mention of the other Haag-class 
competitor.  The original "private  discoverer" cries "FOUL!".  You trespassed on MY 
strewn field and never  even gave me credit.  I was going to announce it in 6 
months when nothing  was left to learn because I have invested a great deal of 
my resources in this  and that is "how it works."

To which our underdog guy responds, "Go jump  in a lake, I got my first 
complete stone, classified it, and disclosed its  location.  What's in your head 
doesn't concern me.  We all know your  practices and fat budget, and we really 
think you are fantastic scientists   - so chalk this one up as a reminder that 
you don't own the universe just  because you have the biggest network of peons 
and vehicles and greed.  And  I have nothing else to say to you, so bug off."

"I demand you explain to  me if you looked at my travel agents public records 
to find that stone,"  responds the miffed world leader.  "Now you have ruined 
the science because  we were sloppy and everyone else can find it and we 
can't finish the job we  started, nor get a monopoly on the stone, and be in a 
position to trade for the  crown jewels of other museums, nor monopolize 
distribution to  collectors.."

"How it works?  Yeah, right.  No further  response."  In private to his 
accomplices "We calculated the orbit and made  it public, the rules of the process 
- he screwed up from greed.  And he is  not happy to be a footnote as having 
been acknowledged as privately discovering  it first.  With all the science he 
has done, and will get credit for, why  can't he be happy with that?  It is 
not like his career depends on  it.  The fact is I was in the area too and here 
are my plates to prove  it.  The orbit was calculated from independent images, 
and how I saw the  jumping dot on my images is not his concern, it is the 
concern of the guy who  writes the blink software.  This is not about blink  
software.

Finally my opinion, while I hope Ortiz comes clean, I  appreciate the gif 
image from Ortiz as it was my first glimpse of the  object.  Ortiz released the 
first orbit.  The answer is that the  discoverer ought to be selected just as 
he was for Neptune (How exciting to be  living that in our lifetime again - I 
used to read about it and marvel at the  good old days), but this time the 
circumstances carefully documented for  posterity with no hard feelings and snubs 
be immortalized.  And the  covetted right to name it something besides the 
Easter Bunny or Santa  Claus?  A name selected by Ortiz and Brown together.  If 
they can't  agree, it remains without a name until after they pass on at which 
point the IAU  selects a name, since by then they ought to figure out what 
sort of beast it  is...

Saludos, Doug

====================
Paul H. wrote:
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