I wonder why this article keeps appearing everywhere. I'm not sure why they're allowing the student to get the credit. Maybe it's a feel-good-encourage-STEM piece.
normally the professor's name goes last on the paper, and the convention is well understood that being last author means they functioned in an advisory/funding role and may not have done much of the actual work.
there's plenty to be cynical about in the world of scientific research but it's definitely not the norm for professors to claim sole credit for work done by their students or employees.
I wholeheartedly endorse this, and the idea of a human originated intelligence eventually exploring a system with a name/designation like that brings a smile to my face.
>That's a good way to get a star named Starry McStarface
Huh? I thought that was from voting, i.e. democracy :
"The Boaty McBoatface saga is not the first time online polls have gone awry. Greenpeace launched a campaign to name a humpback whale in the South pacific in an attempt to keep them from being poached by the Japanese. The poll prompted a voting frenzy after Mr Splashy Pants was put forward – and ended up winning 78% of the vote.
Similarly in 2012, soft drinks brand Mountain Dew was forced to abandon a poll to name its new apple-flavoured drink after it was hijacked by message board 4chan who ensured that “Hitler did nothing wrong” won the vote.
The city of Austin, Texas, also learned the perils of public voting after a poll to rename the Solid Waste Services Department ended up with an overwhelming number of votes to call it The Fred Durst Society of the Humanities and Arts as an ode to the Limp Bizkit singer."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/17/boaty-mc...
All it takes is someone that values 5 minutes of internet fame (or even just a joke to share with friends) over any respect of the scientific community. The easier it is to find a new star, the more likely I think that will be the case.
Seriously, why not the group that funded the research, or society at large?
“You don’t get the credit, because I enabled you to find it, so I get to claim it as mine.” At best, that person should be a note in the colophon.
And if the rewards structure is broken so the lab manager isn’t viewed as “doing his job” if his name isn’t on enough breakthroughs - specifically because the people he oversees the hiring and firing of are instead getting the credit - then /that/ is broken.
What’s not broken is crediting a teenager for finding something interesting. And, to be fair, it’s only really interesting because he (a teenager with no experience) found it. So I’m even more concerned that the parent comment reflects science professionals’ insecurity.
And to be clear, I’m unaware of whether in this particular situation, the manager’s ego was bruised. So, I’m speaking to the general case where egos are bruised.
The payout to an effective manager here is that his/her managed employees are empowered by his/her ability to empower them, and that’s his/her rocket-fuel. He/she runs an amazing team, which everyone wants to be a part of - and that stands on its own.
Alternatively, demoralize the employees you manage at your own peril. I’ve watched both situations play out plenty of times. And, for better or worse, have been on both sides of that conversation. Selflessness and championing of your team over yourself has a funny way of translating to improved morale, success and longevity.