Shared authorship hilariousity

August 19, 2011

I just noticed something.

Did you see the commentary from Tabak and Collins on the racial disparity in NIH grant awards?

Lawrence A. Tabak*,
Francis S. Collins*

*These authors contributed equally to this work.

This is unbelievable. It is a TWO PERSON COMMENTARY!!

Collins is the bloody director of the NIH. He needs authorship credit spelled out? Seriously?

Advertisements

No Responses Yet to “Shared authorship hilariousity”


  1. The only thing I can think of is maybe Science wouldn’t let them list both e-mail addresses as corresponding author unless they did that.

    Like

  2. Fred Says:

    The only thing better would have been:

    Lawrence A. Tabak*,
    Francis S. Collins,
    Francis S. Collins*

    Like

  3. El Picador Says:

    Author Contributions

    LT: wrung hands

    FC: shed crocodile tears

    Like

  4. amicus enemicus Says:

    Actually, I think it is a good idea that his name is spelled out for each specific thing he is directly involved and therefore responsible. Lately, he gets blamed for the very wrong things going on at NIH and one would like to know whether is actually Collins or somebody else (s) doing’s. It would be good if real doers would identify themselves on what they do and promote and not use NIH Director to shield themselves. It is exasperating and does a disservice to the institution.

    Like

  5. El Picador Says:

    What wrong things?

    Like

  6. Alex Says:

    Look, his boss used to be on the faculty at Chicago. Joint first authorship on a Science paper will matter in his annual performance review. And Energy Secretary Steve Chu is publishing in Nature on a regular basis, which sets the bar for everybody else in the Executive Branch. How bad would it look if the NIH Director can’t match the publication record of the Energy Secretary?

    I’ll bet they both make fun of the head of the NSA, though. Math journals have pathetic impact factors.

    Like

  7. amicus enemicus Says:

    The latest being said is Barbary Alving, who is a superb leader, being forced out of NIH….
    I don’t believe, not even for a second, that Collins is the doer on that. However, it is happening and what is very irritating is that Collins could not do anything to prevent it.

    Like

  8. El Picador Says:

    Hahahahah, yeah right. Dude, she’s leaving the sinking ship before it goes under is all. That is about NCAtS, which is Collins’ baby.

    Who can “force” a flipping Director of an IC to leave if not the NIH Director anyway?

    Like

  9. amicus enemicus Says:

    Who?

    The “centralizer” branch of NIH with “long bras” inside the Strategic Coordination Office (DCPSIS) or whatever is called

    Like

  10. amicus enemicus Says:

    and btw, NCRR is not sinking at all!. It has been flourishing by empowering biomedical communities all over the country…. that is decentralizing… and that is precisely what the “centralizer” branch of NIH aided by Strategic Coordination is trying to kill by sinking them.

    Like


  11. No one but Collins’s grandmother gives a fuck about his equal effort.

    Like


  12. “Long bras”???? What the fucken fucke are you fuckeasses fucken talking about???

    Like

  13. whimple Says:

    I thought Collins would put down something like, “God is my co-author.”

    Like

  14. El Picador Says:

    Oh yeah, NCRR is just fiiine and dandy these days…

    Like

  15. El Picador Says:

    http://t.co/hJzQZGM

    Juuuust fine, our NCRR. Nothing to see here.

    Like

  16. anonymous Says:

    What’s so odd about Collins as an author, sharing first authorship? This means that he was actually actively involved in writing it. It means that the response truly came from him, not just a lackey. I see no issue or funny stuff here.

    Like

  17. DrugMonkey Says:

    There is no reason whatsoever for two authors to have to indicate they contributed equally. That’s the default assumption *particularly* for an opinion piece or review. this just adds to the ridiculous excesses of “shared contribution” fooflaw

    Like

  18. Shecky R Says:

    If ‘equal contribution’ is the ‘default assumption’ then the two names ought be presented in alphabetical order; otherwise I assume the first author is primary. I’ve certainly seen instances of a Dept. Head being automatically listed as a 2nd author when having done no work whatsoever, other than reviewing an article prior to journal submission (part of your “ridiculous excesses”).

    Like

  19. kristie Says:

    DM,

    Even if they had used pseudonyms the order would have been the same

    Dentist Dude *
    King Melchor *

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: