Sterling,
This has been a very contentious issue. Your story is just one version of the
story, another version is not so negative and equally viable, perhaps even more
likely.
Point is that currently the MPC officially designates the discovery credit to
Ortiz et al. So by standing rules they have the naming right too. That's how it
currently stands, accusations or not. Discovery credit currently has NOT been
denied to Ortiz et al.
As I see it, and will point out step by step below, it has never been proven
Ortiz et al. are guilty of scientific misconduct. Personally, I doubt it.
What happened, a less negative version, following the FACTS instead of
unsubstantiated malicious suggestions:
Ortiz et al., processing their (2003) data, discovered a bright slow mover in
their data. Remember, they were running a project to look for TNO's.
At that time, the object they found was a very unusual object (in terms of
unexpected brightness. The first of that kind, Eris existence had not been
reported yet). So, some discussion before submitting their data, they don't want
to make fools of themselves. This is very sane and normal.
Please note: at that point, 2003 EL61 did officially not yet exist in any way.
There are strict rules about when a minor object discovery is official, just
like there are rules about official naming procedure for minor objects. Rules
which Brown et al. have shunned in the case of Eris/"Xena" by the way.
An abstract by Brown had appearred around that time. It was *not* a formal
discovery announcement. It suggested they had observed just such a bright
object. Hence Ortiz et al., remembering it, checked it, which again is normal
and sane.
They then Googled the unofficial designation to see whether they could find more
written about it, as it seemed to concern a similar (not necessary the same)
object. Which again, is understandable and not wrong in any way. You might even
say it is sane to do when you have something unusual.
Lo behold, in this way they ended up on a *publicly accesible* web document,
providing info on where in the sky the not yet formally published object
resided. Looking at it, their IP gets logged. Yet, *this is still in no way
scientific misconduct*. They return a few times, being unsure about it all.
Seems the same object yes: yet nothing official on it to be found.
Independant co-discovery of objects is very common in astronomy. Standing rules
are clear: the first one who announces it the formal way, gets discovery credit.
There's nothing unethical in this, its just how the game goes in science. It
happens often that rumours about an independant discovery arive over the
grapevine, leading a research team to quickly publish their finds to take credit
before someone else (rightfully!) does.
Ortiz et al. then therefore decide to publish *their own* data, constituting an
independant co-discovery, in the formal way, through the proper procedure of
reporting astrometry to the MPC, leading to an MPEC with temporary designation
(2003 EL61) for the object. They are earlier than Brown et al. And hence get the
credit: its after THEIR report with THEIR data the object "exists" formally.
There is NOTHING unethical or wrong in this, mind you. That Brown et al. did not
report earlier, is Brown et al.'s own responsibility.
Shortly after this, a fuzz breaks out and people start to accuse Ortiz et al of
scientific misconduct, trying to transfer discovery credit to Brown et al. In
this process the Ortiz et al team is accused of "hacking" into Brown's data
server (which is by no means true!) and somehow the suggestion is made that
their following the officialy established route, with their own data, suddenly
is "scientific misconduct".
You see Sterling? This is quite another version. Which fits the sequence of
events completely as far as the established FACTS are concerned (as opposed to
malicious gossip), and acquits Ortiz et al from any wrong-doing.
The fact that the MPC still lists Ortiz et al. as the official discoverers of
2003 EL61 says enough.
By the way, a lot of bullshit has been said at the time about that Ortiz et al.
should have referrenced Brown et al. when making their report to the MPC. Which
is bullshit. The standard procedure, using a strict format, for reporting
astrometry on a (new, undesignated) object to the MPC doesn't even allow for
this. Nor where they complied to. As far as the formal procedures for such are
concerned the Brown et al discovery did not exist a that time, period. There
were no data at all to refer to.
Ortiz et al. stole nothing, and they are the official discoverers of 2003 EL61.
Not Brown et al.
- Marco
Sterling K. Webb wrote:
Hi,
"Rights" and "credit" are neither right nor credible
when stolen.
"A week before Ortiz's discovery, on July 20, Brown et al.
had published an abstract of a report they intended to use to
announce the discovery, in which the object was referred to
by the internal code name K40506A. Typing this code into
internet search engines allowed anyone to find the observation
logs of Brown's group, including the observed positions of
the object. Third-party web server logs indicated that the
page in question had been accessed by an IP address used
by computers at the Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía
where Ortiz's group worked. Brown's group accused Ortiz's
group of a serious breach of scientific ethics and asked the
Minor Planet Center to strip them of discovery status.
Ortiz later admitted he accessed the internet telescope logs,
downloading the relevant information a day before making
his announcement, but denied any wrongdoing. He concedes
that it was Brown's team that had discovered the object."
Sterling K. Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marco Langbroek"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "meteorite list" <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:17 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] re: All Hail Eris and Dysnomia (2003 UB313)
Suggested names have yet to
be submitted for two of Brown's group's other famous KBOs: 2005 FY9 and
2003 EL61.
?? Naming rights and formal discovery credit for 2003 EL61 are not
Brown's: but Ortiz et al.'s....
- Marco
-----
Dr Marco Langbroek
Dutch Meteor Society (DMS)
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
private website http://home.wanadoo.nl/marco.langbroek
DMS website http://www.dmsweb.org
-----
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
--
-----
Dr Marco Langbroek
Dutch Meteor Society (DMS)
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
private website http://home.wanadoo.nl/marco.langbroek
DMS website http://www.dmsweb.org
-----
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
