A wonderfully provocative commentary appears in a recent issue of Nature (2001, 413, 835). Writing about the allocation, or more correctly the misallocation, of credit, the Cambridge geneticist Peter Lawrence drew attention to the fact that it may indeed be time 'to bring justice to the allocation of credit'. Lawrence seemed incensed by the prospect of a brave new world of science where 'scientists are ranked like tennis players, measured by their numbers of papers, impact factors of the journals concerned, their position in the author list and the number of citations their papers receive'. To climb up the ranking list requires strategic accumulation of credit and Lawrence argues 'that a common way to build rank is to annex credit from junior colleagues'. Lawrence suggests that granting agencies 'ensure that those they pay to run research groups put caring for their groups first and swanning around the world or running companies second. They, as well as prize committees and those assessing job applicants, must cease rewarding those who misappropriate credit'. Lawrence's sharply-worded essay raises many contentious issues, problems of authorship (whose name must appear first in the bylines of scientific papers), the clever use of the conference circuit to build up a few stars, the treatment of research students by supervisors, 'competition within and between groups' and the increasingly damaging impact of the impact-factor measurement. While Lawrence's litany of complaints addresses the contemporary practice of science in Western laboratories with a focus on biomedical research, many of his concerns might indeed be viewed in a wider context.
展开▼
