So, if what the dad had the daughter do was so not a big deal, then why didn't the dad just have the daughter knock off his own research that hadn't gotten a lot if traction? Surely he had his own research topic that nobody was really talking about? I mean, he wouldn't have minded if his daughter took credit for all that work, right? The topic getting attention is all that matters, right?
I think the attention was a complete fluke. I've admitted the dad was a dick but I seriously doubt this was all part of his brilliant and evil scheme to embarrass Jud. The dad was a dick not to insist on citing Jud (apparently, if you mention the first author's name, it has to be FOUR times or else you're a jerk).
But Jud is a sniveling asshat. Really? Complaining about a kid's science fair project?
For those of you playing at home, I'm one of the few people who is even sort of on your side, despite thinking your overall goal is ridiculous.
Again, Jud isn't complaining that the girl's project is bad. He's annoyed that her extension (which took, what? 4 weeks?) of his research (which took him years) got all of the credit. He even took special care in his Facebook post to note that he doesn't want to discourage the student. But, he's totally allowed to be disappointed for being scooped, especially because this exposure is one fun month of interviews for her, but could have made a lifetime's career for him. Sharing that with his friends isn't wrong.
Why would any parent be defending this shit? Especially one who knows (conceivably) the rules about such things? Whether or not that other guy is a dick is irrelevant. He could be a serial killer and that wouldn't change the fact that the student in question didn't give credit where credit was due.
Maybe I wasn't clear. How do you know that the daughter had any knowledge of Jud's research? Because there's just the outside chance that she didn't have a subscription to Aquatic Biology because, since she's 12, her subscription won't start until 2020.
So, by "the father's a dick" I'm saying, that he probably knew about Jud's research and should have done more (I don't know what, we don't actually KNOW that the 12-year-old didn't cite Jud, but I'm willing to believe she didn't) but the idea that the 12-year-old plagiarized is silly.
Is this really want to teach your daughter? That when someone stands up for their research you get to attack them on the internet? Because you're butthurt that she's not being seen as the completely 100% genius that thought all this up?
Really? I mean... really. That's what you want to teach her. How to be a bully to someone who stands up for themselves. Bravo. Stellar parenting there.
Could you explain how he "stood up for his research?" Because I say he was jealous of someone else's (a kid's).
Remember, his research had already been published (and ignored). he was upset because a little girl was getting HIS attention. That is pathetic.
I know you're pissed off and it's your mission this evening to demonize me, but you are pathetic for defending him.
Because it was his attention to get? This isn't that hard of a concept.
Why would any parent be defending this shit? Especially one who knows (conceivably) the rules about such things? Whether or not that other guy is a dick is irrelevant. He could be a serial killer and that wouldn't change the fact that the student in question didn't give credit where credit was due.
Maybe I wasn't clear. How do you know that the daughter had any knowledge of Jud's research? Because there's just the outside chance that she didn't have a subscription to Aquatic Biology because, since she's 12, her subscription won't start until 2020.
So, by "the father's a dick" I'm saying, that he probably knew about Jud's research and should have done more (I don't know what, we don't actually KNOW that the 12-year-old didn't cite Jud, but I'm willing to believe she didn't) but the idea that the 12-year-old plagiarized is silly.
So you don't think the girl cited Jud and that is just totes okay because he is an ass and 12 year olds are smart enough to create this project all on her own (no help from Dad) so there was no way she, nor her father, would have known about Jud to give him the proper citation. Regardless, he's an ass so he doesn't deserve it.
Is this really want to teach your daughter? That when someone stands up for their research you get to attack them on the internet? Because you're butthurt that she's not being seen as the completely 100% genius that thought all this up?
Really? I mean... really. That's what you want to teach her. How to be a bully to someone who stands up for themselves. Bravo. Stellar parenting there.
Could you explain how he "stood up for his research?" Because I say he was jealous of someone else's (a kid's).
Remember, his research had already been published (and ignored). he was upset because a little girl was getting HIS attention. That is pathetic.
I know you're pissed off and it's your mission this evening to demonize me, but you are pathetic for defending him.
He said, "This research is mine. And here are my published findings to prove it."
That's not jealousy. That's called protecting your intellectual property. If you truly have published your research like you say you have, you'll remember this as that piece of paper you sign that usually has the word "copyright" in it.
Actually, I think whining about how a 12-year-old's science fair project has totally eclipsed one's published study and then to publically agonize about how to steal some of her thunder? I think that's pretty much the definition of a "douche bag."
However, +1 for you for your ad hominem attack.
Douchebag, however, is a completely clinical and objective assessment of Dr. Jud and certainly not ad hominem.
And being a bully about it. If he's doing this shit on a random internet board, can you imagine what he's saying at home?
I just want ONE admin to give a location on the IP address so that TTT can use her mad FB skillz to confirm this is dad.
I'm not the dad. Confirm away.
I'll repeat how I got here. It pisses me off that Zack Jud is such a sniveling asshat that he's threatened by a 12-year-old's science project. I have explained that his kind of science is exactly what we don't want. An Internet search lead me to your little corner of the Internet.
I've stayed, however, because I do like to argue. And, empirically, so do many of you.
What am I missing here though is why you all are saying she didn't cite his work on her project? Based on the dad and the third party comments, her project absolutely did cite Jud's work appropriately and was not plagiarism. I think what all you professional scientists ( ) are getting caught up on is that Jud could have been cited a million and five times in the interviews and still not made the article. These are mass media interviews you are getting upset about (deservedly so), not scientific journals. In J-school you learn to write to what, a fifth grade level? The devil is NOT in the details here like it is in your job guys.
Flame away
Signed, Definitely NOT smart enough to be a professional scientist but I would be happy to media train you/be your PR person so this doesn't happen to you
Oh heck no! I already made the joke. Page 4 or 5 I think.
I'm just giddy that all the scientists have arrived. I've actually been clapping.
Ah, well, in that case, is this where I drop my credentials?
aurora, Ph.D. (in engineering...is that close enough to science to have credibility in this debate?)
That depends. Would you allow a 12 year old to rip off your ideas, pass them off as their own, and sit back and shrug and say "Meh. They're just 12!!!"
I don't have any fancy titles. I did work in the field long enough and contributed to several papers that I have my name mentioned in. Surely that counts?
I also know that this sort of behavior wouldn't have flown very well in that community. The (top) scientific field is very small.
I think the attention was a complete fluke. I've admitted the dad was a dick but I seriously doubt this was all part of his brilliant and evil scheme to embarrass Jud. The dad was a dick not to insist on citing Jud (apparently, if you mention the first author's name, it has to be FOUR times or else you're a jerk).
But Jud is a sniveling asshat. Really? Complaining about a kid's science fair project?
For those of you playing at home, I'm one of the few people who is even sort of on your side, despite thinking your overall goal is ridiculous.
Again, Jud isn't complaining that the girl's project is bad. He's annoyed that her extension (which took, what? 4 weeks?) of his research (which took him years) got all of the credit. He even took special care in his Facebook post to note that he doesn't want to discourage the student. But, he's totally allowed to be disappointed for being scooped, especially because this exposure is one fun month of interviews for her, but could have made a lifetime's career for him. Sharing that with his friends isn't wrong.
Eh, I wouldn't call it scooping - if the kid did the fish tank experiment in 6ppm versus 7 or whatnot, it's not scooping per se. Nor is it something that would stand alone as a finding suitable for publication -as conceded by the other PI (not recalling his name). I don't think Jud felt like this kid was scooping him, endangering his career or threatening his work in any way - in fact it's not like a job he *might* have had on the line is now not in the offering because OH NOES a 12 year old did something. I think it's more of a sad "hey, I wish MY work - you know, the work the kid is claiming credit for conceiving, had this much media attention!" Not like media attention gets anyone a job because seriously - no one gave a shit about the work except for the fact it was "done" by a 12 year old. That's true (I say with the utmost sadness) of most important basic research studies. Because Amuricans don't care about "fruit flies in Paris, France."
I just want ONE admin to give a location on the IP address so that TTT can use her mad FB skillz to confirm this is dad.
I'm not the dad. Confirm away.
I'll repeat how I got here. It pisses me off that Zack Jud is such a sniveling asshat that he's threatened by a 12-year-old's science project. I have explained that his kind of science is exactly what we don't want. An Internet search lead me to your little corner of the Internet.
I've stayed, however, because I do like to argue. And, empirically, so do many of you.
Ah, well, in that case, is this where I drop my credentials?
aurora, Ph.D. (in engineering...is that close enough to science to have credibility in this debate?)
That depends. Would you allow a 12 year old to rip off your ideas, pass them off as their own, and sit back and shrug and say "Meh. They're just 12!!!"
Is my other option to adopt her so that I can bask in all the money she earns from her early patents? No? Hmm, well then I'd have to turn to CE&P for advice before proceeding further.
Could you explain how he "stood up for his research?" Because I say he was jealous of someone else's (a kid's).
Remember, his research had already been published (and ignored). he was upset because a little girl was getting HIS attention. That is pathetic.
I know you're pissed off and it's your mission this evening to demonize me, but you are pathetic for defending him.
He said, "This research is mine. And here are my published findings to prove it."
That's not jealousy. That's called protecting your intellectual property. If you truly have published your research like you say you have, you'll remember this as that piece of paper you sign that usually has the word "copyright" in it.
You DO realize that it wasn't HIS research, right? She did a more-or-less completely different study. He did a lot of work; go see his paper. He caught tons of lionfish in estuaries. He dissected about 90 of them to survey their stomach contents. He weighed and measured them, showing that some of the smallest were found farthest inland (> 4km).
She.. well, I don't know what she did with six lionfish and six tanks, but I assume she raised them in different degrees of salinity. Someone said for four weeks.
So, different research. D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T, as in "Her research was completely different from that asshat, Zack Jud."
So, no offence but your argument is crap. It's no more HIS research than it was MINE or YOURS. The ONLY argument for plagiarism is that a professional scholar would have cited his work (probably). It's a pretty thin argument.
But don't worry; this is the Internet where you can believe anything and all your opinions are perfectly factual (especially if you're "pretty sure" about something).
(Not to insult all of you very, very smart people, but why do I get the impression that I'm the only one who bothered to read his fucking paper?)
What am I missing here though is why you all are saying she didn't cite his work on her project? Based on the dad and the third party comments, her project absolutely did cite Jud's work appropriately and was not plagiarism. I think what all you professional scientists ( ) are getting caught up on is that Jud could have been cited a million and five times in the interviews and still not made the article. These are mass media interviews you are getting upset about (deservedly so), not scientific journals. In J-school you learn to write to what, a fifth grade level? The devil is NOT in the details here like it is in your job guys.
Flame away
Signed, Definitely NOT smart enough to be a professional scientist but I would be happy to media train you/be your PR person so this doesn't happen to you
This is why:
The NPR story, “Sixth Grader’s Science Fair Finding Shocks Ecologists,” quotes Lauren on the line of thinking that led to her discovery:
"Scientists were doing plenty of tests on them, but they just always assumed they were in the ocean," Lauren, now 13, tells NPR's Kelly McEvers. "So I was like, 'Well, hey guys, what about the river?' "
I don't think anyone is saying that her ACTUAL science project - I am assuming that is a poster and maybe a written report - is wholly unoriginal. If in fact it cited previous work then good on her. It's the broader representation in media and beyond that seems to be the issue. It would be like a minor collaborator on a published paper - where the collaborator's minor contribution is spelled out EXPLICITLY in the publication - going on a media junket and taking credit for the entire body of work. It's misrepresentation and effectively plagiarism. Taking credit for another person's original work without attribution.
What am I missing here though is why you all are saying she didn't cite his work on her project? Based on the dad and the third party comments, her project absolutely did cite Jud's work appropriately and was not plagiarism. I think what all you professional scientists ( ) are getting caught up on is that Jud could have been cited a million and five times in the interviews and still not made the article. These are mass media interviews you are getting upset about (deservedly so), not scientific journals. In J-school you learn to write to what, a fifth grade level? The devil is NOT in the details here like it is in your job guys.
Flame away
Signed, Definitely NOT smart enough to be a professional scientist but I would be happy to media train you/be your PR person so this doesn't happen to you
I'm not going to speak for everyone else, but this is what I'm getting hung up on:
When Lauren told NPR that she was the first to suggest that scientists look in rivers for evidence of lionfish, she was not being honest. Worst-case scenario, she knowingly told a lie, but even if she simply misspoke, she made a mistake. That’s what children do, and when they do, the adults in their lives are tasked with turning those mistakes into learning experiences. One can only hope that in a private conversation after that NPR interview, Lauren’s father had pointed out that, actually, the original idea for her “finding” had come from another scientist, one he’d known professionally, and that maybe they should mention Jud’s work in her next interview. However, as Lauren went on to perpetuate falsehoods in subsequent interviews, the adults in Lauren’s life seem to have fallen down on their job as teachers and role models.
To me, this reads as though even if it was appropriately cited in the research project (which I don't know if it was, I haven't seen it), it was NOT appropriately cited/credited in the interviews. If she appropriately cited it in her original project, then she damn well knew she wasn't 'the first' to suggest this, and never should have used that language in an interview. To me, using that language is just as big an error as not citing work correctly in a paper.
When I've done media releases on my work that have built on past findings, I have NEVER credited my work as the first. It's intellectually dishonest.
For those of you playing at home, I'm one of the few people who is even sort of on your side, despite thinking your overall goal is ridiculous.
Again, Jud isn't complaining that the girl's project is bad. He's annoyed that her extension (which took, what? 4 weeks?) of his research (which took him years) got all of the credit. He even took special care in his Facebook post to note that he doesn't want to discourage the student. But, he's totally allowed to be disappointed for being scooped, especially because this exposure is one fun month of interviews for her, but could have made a lifetime's career for him. Sharing that with his friends isn't wrong.
Eh, I wouldn't call it scooping - if the kid did the fish tank experiment in 6ppm versus 7 or whatnot, it's not scooping per se. Nor is it something that would stand alone as a finding suitable for publication -as conceded by the other PI (not recalling his name). I don't think Jud felt like this kid was scooping him, endangering his career or threatening his work in any way - in fact it's not like a job he *might* have had on the line is now not in the offering because OH NOES a 12 year old did something. I think it's more of a sad "hey, I wish MY work - you know, the work the kid is claiming credit for conceiving, had this much media attention!" Not like media attention gets anyone a job because seriously - no one gave a shit about the work except for the fact it was "done" by a 12 year old. That's true (I say with the utmost sadness) of most important basic research studies. Because Amuricans don't care about "fruit flies in Paris, France."
I think we're on the same page here. The kid got the credit for the general idea he discovered because she was 12. I was basing my "make a career" statement on when he said in his Facebook post, "At this stage in my career, this type of national exposure would be invaluable...if only my name was included in the stories." In my field, anyway, that kind of exposure could be the difference between staying where you are and getting a job a tier up. I'm not sure he realizes yet, though, that she wouldn't have gotten that exposure had she not been 12. It's her age, not the finding itself, that seems so important to the media.
For those of you playing at home, I'm one of the few people who is even sort of on your side, despite thinking your overall goal is ridiculous.
Again, Jud isn't complaining that the girl's project is bad. He's annoyed that her extension (which took, what? 4 weeks?) of his research (which took him years) got all of the credit. He even took special care in his Facebook post to note that he doesn't want to discourage the student. But, he's totally allowed to be disappointed for being scooped, especially because this exposure is one fun month of interviews for her, but could have made a lifetime's career for him. Sharing that with his friends isn't wrong.
Eh, I wouldn't call it scooping - if the kid did the fish tank experiment in 6ppm versus 7 or whatnot, it's not scooping per se. Nor is it something that would stand alone as a finding suitable for publication -as conceded by the other PI (not recalling his name). I don't think Jud felt like this kid was scooping him, endangering his career or threatening his work in any way - in fact it's not like a job he *might* have had on the line is now not in the offering because OH NOES a 12 year old did something. I think it's more of a sad "hey, I wish MY work - you know, the work the kid is claiming credit for conceiving, had this much media attention!" Not like media attention gets anyone a job because seriously - no one gave a shit about the work except for the fact it was "done" by a 12 year old. That's true (I say with the utmost sadness) of most important basic research studies. Because Amuricans don't care about "fruit flies in Paris, France."
AKA sniveling asshat. And let's be clear. This 12-year-old girl (and her dick father -- I'm playing his role tonight--until something called TTT finds me out) was accused of PLAGIARISM by the OP and the Atlantic (which, we're all "pretty sure" knows what plagiarism [and irony] is and never makes a mistake, ever) because this COLOSSAL ASSHAT names Zack Jud snivels on FB about how she's being interviewed by NPR about research that's kinda-sorta like his published and forgotten 2011 study.
He said, "This research is mine. And here are my published findings to prove it."
That's not jealousy. That's called protecting your intellectual property. If you truly have published your research like you say you have, you'll remember this as that piece of paper you sign that usually has the word "copyright" in it.
You DO realize that it wasn't HIS research, right? She did a more-or-less completely different study. He did a lot of work; go see his paper. He caught tons of lionfish in estuaries. He dissected about 90 of them to survey their stomach contents. He weighed and measured them, showing that some of the smallest were found farthest inland (> 4km).
She.. well, I don't know what she did with six lionfish and six tanks, but I assume she raised them in different degrees of salinity. Someone said for four weeks.
So, different research. D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T, as in "Her research was completely different from that asshat, Zack Jud."
So, no offence but your argument is crap. It's no more HIS research than it was MINE or YOURS. The ONLY argument for plagiarism is that a professional scholar would have cited his work (probably). It's a pretty thin argument.
But don't worry; this is the Internet where you can believe anything and all your opinions are perfectly factual (especially if you're "pretty sure" about something).
(Not to insult all of you very, very smart people, but why do I get the impression that I'm the only one who bothered to read his fucking paper?)
I'd argue that really none of do research ex nihil, nor is what I do "completely different" from the people who have done work before me. That's just not how science works. Of course she did a different study than his using her own fish. But the important piece is that he had the idea first. To not credit his idea (and I have no idea if she did or not or where she did or not) is plagiarism.
And, again for the record, although I don't think Jud is a douchebag for the position he took, he is playing this all wrong IMO by playing the pity card. This story got attention. In our area, both the lion fish problem and the river are hot topics right now. As it says in the story, this girl's research is done, she's declined further involvement. I would be following up with every writer that wrote this story (at least locally and in the science trades...I'm doubting the Today Show or NPR will bite again but who knows) and be telling the writer what new groundbreaking research I am NOW doing, see this girl's story and how much attention it brought to this problem, I (as evidenced in her citation) am the mac daddy founder of all this research, I am your go to guy for lion fish and salinity. We used to love picking low hanging fruit this way
Post by andrealynn on Jul 28, 2014 23:52:34 GMT -5
I don't think anyone here has found fault with the girl nor with her project. I personally don't even have any strong opinions on whether or not Dr. Jud's approach to pointing out that his work was being used without credit, is the rigt one.
The bigger issue that most posters here have had all along is that virtually ALL of the adults in this situation (media members, science reporters, and the girl's parents, to name a few) did not reign it in when it was clear that the claims being made were outside of the realm of standard scientific practice.
Surely the entire point for the 12 year old is not to publish or perish, but to actually learn about the subject and, more broadly, about how to actually do science. She failed at at least half of that endeavor due to the role of adults that should know better.
And, again for the record, although I don't think Jud is a douchebag for the position he took, he is playing this all wrong IMO by playing the pity card. This story got attention. In our area, both the lion fish problem and the river are hot topics right now. As it says in the story, this girl's research is done, she's declined further involvement. I would be following up with every writer that wrote this story (at least locally and in the science trades...I'm doubting the Today Show or NPR will bite again but who knows) and be telling the writer what new groundbreaking research I am NOW doing, see this girl's story and how much attention it brought to this problem, I (as evidenced in her citation) am the mac daddy founder of all this research, I am your go to guy for lion fish and salinity. We used to love picking low hanging fruit this way
I just want ONE admin to give a location on the IP address so that TTT can use her mad FB skillz to confirm this is dad.
I'm not the dad. Confirm away.
I'll repeat how I got here. It pisses me off that Zack Jud is such a sniveling asshat that he's threatened by a 12-year-old's science project. I have explained that his kind of science is exactly what we don't want. An Internet search lead me to your little corner of the Internet.
I've stayed, however, because I do like to argue. And, empirically, so do many of you.
Okay, I'll bite on the "his kind of science is exactly what we don't want" angle here even though (full disclosure) I'm a measly M.A. in Literature.
So Dr. Jud's research indicated that lionfish can live in water that has far, far less salinity than the ocean. These findings were confirmed and strengthened by the science fair project. The value (or "want" to use your phrasing) in this particular field of study has to do with the way lionfish have, as an invasive species, done incredible damage to native reef fish and plant life in the Bahamas and other Caribbean locales since they were first introduced to the area in 2005.
By the way, so we're on the up-and-up, my understanding of the importance of lionfish research is completely attributable to this story from NPR.
If lionfish can so quickly and aggressively invade the environments discussed in the article I linked, what would prevent them from becoming the next invasive species to destroy freshwater ecosystems as well? The research in question could actually be incredibly important if both studies have managed to predict a real environmental problem before it starts so scientists can begin working on a solution.