4 ms·

>The first person to produce definitive results generally gets all the credit. Those who come in second are soon forgotten. 'Generally'. In more than a few cas

>The first person to produce definitive results generally gets all the credit. Those who come in second are soon forgotten. 'Generally'. In more than a few cases, the first person did not receive any credit at all, for years, decades or even centuries. (E.g. who invented the light bulb? or antisepsis? or the transistor? or LEDs? or the first electronic organ? *) Studying those cases may lead you to tactics to prevent being 'robbed'. Several of those 'first' persons were 'inspired' (ahem) by forgotten/obscured work. * Ever heard of Winston E. Kock?

j7ake 4y ago
Man who discovered gfp (green fluorescent protein) was forgotten. Robert Tsien and Osamu Shimomura, and Chalfie got the nobel prize for it, not Douglas Prasher. The most recent example would be Virginius Siksnys. He did not get the Nobel prize for crispr but it was Doudna and Charpentier who got it instead.
- sn41 4y ago
  Oh dear, yes. I read the biography of Jennifer Doudna by Walter Isaacson. It's a great book, but I really felt sad for Siksnys. Just because their paper got rejected by Cell does not mean that the paper came after Doudna and Charpentier's - after all, it was submitted earlier than Doudna and Charpentier's. The book overall was not very inspiring with the amount of persnickety politics - but then, perhaps, that's how science is, in the day-to-day grind.
  - j7ake 4y ago
    Also there is precedent for Nobel-level papers coming in within months of each other and still be considered for Nobel prize. See circadian rhythms with Michael Young and Michael Rosbash. They both got Nobel prizes, but one of the papers are several months after the other. In the gfp case the three winners also dis their work independently if I am not mistaken. The Siksnys case was discrimination against unknown institutes from unknown countries plain and simple.
derbOac 4y ago
Actually in fact it's so common there's a term for it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy In my own area, I've run into things being rediscovered multiple times.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

j7ake 4y ago

Man who discovered gfp (green fluorescent protein) was forgotten. Robert Tsien and Osamu Shimomura, and Chalfie got the nobel prize for it, not Douglas Prasher. The most recent example would be Virginius Siksnys. He did not get the Nobel prize for crispr but it was Doudna and Charpentier who got it instead.

sn41 4y ago
Oh dear, yes. I read the biography of Jennifer Doudna by Walter Isaacson. It's a great book, but I really felt sad for Siksnys. Just because their paper got rejected by Cell does not mean that the paper came after Doudna and Charpentier's - after all, it was submitted earlier than Doudna and Charpentier's. The book overall was not very inspiring with the amount of persnickety politics - but then, perhaps, that's how science is, in the day-to-day grind.
- j7ake 4y ago
  Also there is precedent for Nobel-level papers coming in within months of each other and still be considered for Nobel prize. See circadian rhythms with Michael Young and Michael Rosbash. They both got Nobel prizes, but one of the papers are several months after the other. In the gfp case the three winners also dis their work independently if I am not mistaken. The Siksnys case was discrimination against unknown institutes from unknown countries plain and simple.

derbOac 4y ago

Actually in fact it's so common there's a term for it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy In my own area, I've run into things being rediscovered multiple times.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]