A teenager discovered a new planet on the third day of his NASA internship(m.sfgate.com)
m.sfgate.com
A teenager discovered a new planet on the third day of his NASA internship
https://m.sfgate.com/news/article/A-teenager-discovered-a-new-planet-on-the-third-14966111.php
8 comments
I think it would be very unethical for an undergraduate who contributed to a research effort not to be listed as an author.
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.
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.
Most of the stories I’ve heard from people I know who used to be in the sector (mother, brother, ex-wife, friends...) don’t match your perception. This is in Europe, but still: credit is hard currency in that world and people can be pretty cut-throat about it.
People can be cutthroat about trying to get their name on papers to which they contributed little, and they may be reluctant to discuss work too openly with others lest the discussion be construed as a collaboration which would require coauthorship. But I think leaving people off the paper who made some contribution is really frowned upon at least in the US.
European research is considered less cutthroat at least in my experience.
It's great PR. And it worked as evidenced by the amount of times I've seen this story pop up
Def a feel-good piece. And I found it particularly strange that every article I've seen includes the "6.9 times the size of Earth" in the title as if the bigger the planet the better. I'd be more impressed by the number of times smaller than earth it might have been....
Planet discoveries have historically gone to those who first laid eyes on it. I don’t see how this would be any different, and they should get to name it.
That's a good way to get a star named Starry McStarface, if that name is not already taken.
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.
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.
>>Planet discoveries have historically gone to those who first laid eyes on it.
>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...
>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...
Yes, it was from voting, but I would say that it's from people that don't have a reputation to protect given some authority and choosing to exercise it to maximize some other value they hold, and the context I was reading the comments in (if not necessarily so much this thread) is that random people can still have an impact on finding new stars and naming them.
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.
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.
Uh, fuck that?
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.
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.
To be fair, the interns and undergrads are doing what they're told. They're under the direction of someone telling them what to do. It's those instructions that led to the discovery.
In that case, I extend my sympathies to the manager’s ego.
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.
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.
If anyone at home wants to discover new planets (without the need for a NASA internship) there has been a citizen science project running for several years [1]. It uses TESS data (I believe Kepler data was used before TESS) and is essentially the same as what the intern has done
I'm mystified why this story is getting spammed so far and wide? Is this a recruiting advert?
[1] https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/nora-dot-eisner/planet-h...
I'm mystified why this story is getting spammed so far and wide? Is this a recruiting advert?
[1] https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/nora-dot-eisner/planet-h...
> I'm mystified why this story is getting spammed so far and wide? Is this a recruiting advert?
It ticks all the boxes of becoming a viral story:
- "A teenager discovered a new planet on the third day of his NASA internship"
- "Teenager" > relatable to people who share most on social media
- "discovered a new planet" > woah, aliens/space
- "the third day of his NASA internship" > Wow, what a accident/savant
It ticks all the boxes of becoming a viral story:
- "A teenager discovered a new planet on the third day of his NASA internship"
- "Teenager" > relatable to people who share most on social media
- "discovered a new planet" > woah, aliens/space
- "the third day of his NASA internship" > Wow, what a accident/savant
Don't forget "teenager discovered" -> special skills not needed / anyone can do it / "I" could do this too.
Can somebody clue me in on the cynical overtones of this thread?
Scientifically illiterate media tends to occasionally treat fairly mundane work as exceptional when performed by a teenager. Particularly if they're from an underrepresented group. It's frustrating to read about such exaggerated accolades.
But laymen eat this shit up.
But laymen eat this shit up.
While I follow this explanation and agree with it outside any other context, I usually find that this position is actually more negative/harmful/self-gratifying on par than that particular flavor of misleading writing is.
[deleted]
It is about explaining what makes the headline clickbaity. TESS is designed to find planets, so someone poring over the data is expected to find one eventually. I.e. it's far less unexpected than the headline suggests. And thus far less newsworthy apart from the people interest aspect.
Exceptionally cynical take follows.
Teenagers who get prestigious internships often come from rich families with connections. If they're particularly affluent/connected, the intern has a problem setup for them so they can "discover" a new discovery or solution to a problem.
Not saying this is frequent, but it's frequent enough that when you see an affluent/connected gifted youngster achieve it's reasonable to be circumspect about them.
Teenagers who get prestigious internships often come from rich families with connections. If they're particularly affluent/connected, the intern has a problem setup for them so they can "discover" a new discovery or solution to a problem.
Not saying this is frequent, but it's frequent enough that when you see an affluent/connected gifted youngster achieve it's reasonable to be circumspect about them.
> the intern has a problem setup for them so they can "discover" a new discovery or solution to a problem.
Wow, that's some next-level cynicism. Well-played, sir!
Wow, that's some next-level cynicism. Well-played, sir!
I think cynicism became paranoia here.
I don't know about that. I wasn't even aware that Nasa let high schoolers do anything when I was a teen or that programs like that existed, and I even graduated my high school summa cum laude with honors in science for a paper I published in an actual journal. Either parents or schools help you with this. It isn't that cynical or paranoid.
I think that a discovery is made by everybody who enabled the collection and analysis of the data, not just the person who happens to stumble upon it during a routine processing of the data.
(Now it may be that I missed it and the intern did something special that prevented this discovery from being otherwise overlooked. )
(And of course none of this is meant as a jab at research interns, it’s honest, fun work and a great way to learn!)
(Now it may be that I missed it and the intern did something special that prevented this discovery from being otherwise overlooked. )
(And of course none of this is meant as a jab at research interns, it’s honest, fun work and a great way to learn!)
What is the point of this article? I've seen it on a few mediums, publications, the morning show.
Isn't there a whole set of enthusiasts looking at snapshots of the entire sky to see if changes or orbital patterns represent planets or other things for categorization?
It just seems like that is being ignored, and its also an aberration to elevate this action as interesting.
It has nothing to do with who gets the take credit for it. That's a red herring to the whole discussion.
It could have just as easily been another headline about "planet found in habitable range" with a random artist illustration. But honestly, maybe this way is more effective since the PR engine is going on overdrive. Its just weird to read.
Isn't there a whole set of enthusiasts looking at snapshots of the entire sky to see if changes or orbital patterns represent planets or other things for categorization?
It just seems like that is being ignored, and its also an aberration to elevate this action as interesting.
It has nothing to do with who gets the take credit for it. That's a red herring to the whole discussion.
It could have just as easily been another headline about "planet found in habitable range" with a random artist illustration. But honestly, maybe this way is more effective since the PR engine is going on overdrive. Its just weird to read.
It seems that the framework used to discover the planet is, in basic terms, to follow trajectories of what is visible (stars) and identify anomalies that end up being planets.
My doubt is: Couldn't this be made in a massive way using software? To identify the anomalies and the identify them (as planets or other things)?
In the course of his lifetime, every man should plant a tree, have a son, write a book, discover a planet...
The whole article is described in one sentense, you can save the click. Discovered, and what?
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.