News | Published:

Credit where credit's due

    Disputes over who truly deserves the credit — or blame — for published work can result in bruised egos, damaged careers and court cases. Helen Pearson looks at ways to avoid fights over authorship.

    A flurry of squabbles about high-profile biological research is prompting scientists to revisit a perennially touchy subject: how should credit for scientific findings be assigned?

    In recent months, a panel on research integrity at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, scolded cloning expert Gerald Schatten for his limited contribution to papers he co-authored with a South Korean team. Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh has been criticized for taking most of the credit in 1997 for the cloning of Dolly the sheep. And a co-author has accused Alison Murdoch, of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, of hogging the credit for an advance in cloning human embryos (see ‘Cloning clashes’).


    1. 1

      Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S. & de Vries, R. Nature 435, 737–738 (2005).

    2. 2

      Kirby, K & Houle, F. A. Phys. Today 57, 42–46 (2004).

    3. 3

      Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A. E., McWhir, J., Kind, A. J. & Campbell, K. H. S. Nature 385, 810–813 (1997).

    4. 4

      Stojkovic, M. et al. Reprod. Biomed. Online 11, 226–231 (2005).

    5. 5

      Hwang, W. S. et al. Science 308, 1777–1783 (2005).

    6. 6

      Science 311, 335 (2006).

    7. 7

      Lee, B. C. et al. Nature 436, 604 (2005).

    Download references

    Related links

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and Permissions

    About this article

    Further reading


    By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.