Diverse Views in the Assignment of Credit for Research Discoveries

Seeman, Jeffrey I.

doi:10.1021/acsomega.1c04845

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I thank Celia Arnaud, Melinda Davis, and Steven M. Weinreb and several journal reviewers for helpful discussions and the Boatwright Memorial Library of the University of Richmond for continuing technical assistance. I also acknowledge my research on and friendship with Carl Djerassi [2,3,5,87,88] and my research on Percy Lavon Julian [8] which provided helpful context to my study and understanding of Russell Marker and his life, chemistry, and the times in which he was active [8,89] …”

Section: Acknowledgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Russell Earl Marker and the Beginning of the Steroidal Pharmaceutical Industry

Seeman

2023

The Chemical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Acknowledgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Russell Earl Marker and the Beginning of the Steroidal Pharmaceutical Industry

Seeman

2023

The Chemical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The third step was to assess whether individuals who have professional experience in RCR activities at their universities have judgements that differ from those of their academic colleagues. An editorial by one of the authors of this paper (JIS) was recently published …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“For Its Size, the Most Complex Natural Product Known.” Who Deserves Credit for Determining the Structure of Strychnine?

Seeman

House

2022

ACS Cent. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists expect to receive appropriate credit for their achievements. Credit for the determination of the structure of strychnine, the most complex natural product for its size, has been given to both Sir Robert Robinson and R. B. Woodward for their independent discoveries in the late 1940s. In this paper, the following question is explored: Who should be given credit for a discovery of a scientific phenomenon: the individual who first published the correct solution but subsequently published another (wrong) explanation and later reverted to the correct structure or several analogues (Robinson)? Or the individual who was second to publish the correct solution (along with additional supporting data) and did not reverse him/ herself (Woodward)? A survey of chemists, mathematicians, life scientists, and social scientists at Ph.D.-granting universities in the U.S. was conducted in which credit allocation and "being first but later recanting versus being second and steadfast" were probed. In addition, ombudspersons, members of institutional review boards, and individuals who have conducted research in the responsible conduct of research were surveyed. The survey revealed a predominant amount of variability among the survey's respondents, and it supports the conclusion that there is great diversity in scientists' behavioral judgments and decisions, even when dealing with such seemingly simple yet important credit issues.

show abstract

“…In this Editorial, we probe a little more deeply into the second point. Of course, we can argue about whether it is ideologically correct to attribute scientific discoveries to individuals, given the complex and interwoven nature of knowledge and the process of discovery, 1 but even if we set that aside there are important consequences of the way in which the evaluation of individuals and groups is conducted on the basis of their publications.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%