Scientists expect to receive appropriate credit for their achievements. Credit for the determination of the structure of strychnine, the most complex natural product for its size, has been given to both Sir Robert Robinson and R. B. Woodward for their independent discoveries in the late 1940s. In this paper, the following question is explored: Who should be given credit for a discovery of a scientific phenomenon: the individual who first published the correct solution but subsequently published another (wrong) explanation and later reverted to the correct structure or several analogues (Robinson)? Or the individual who was second to publish the correct solution (along with additional supporting data) and did not reverse him/herself (Woodward)? A survey of chemists, mathematicians, life scientists, and social scientists at Ph.D.-granting universities in the U.S. was conducted in which credit allocation and “being first but later recanting versus being second and steadfast” were probed. In addition, ombudspersons, members of institutional review boards, and individuals who have conducted research in the responsible conduct of research were surveyed. The survey revealed a predominant amount of variability among the survey’s respondents, and it supports the conclusion that there is great diversity in scientists’ behavioral judgments and decisions, even when dealing with such seemingly simple yet important credit issues.

中文翻译：

---

“就其尺寸而言，它是已知最复杂的天然产品。”谁应该因确定士的宁的结构而受到赞扬？


科学家希望他们的成就能够得到适当的认可。罗伯特·罗宾逊爵士 (Sir Robert Robinson) 和 RB 伍德沃德 (RB Woodward) 在 20 世纪 40 年代末独立发现了马钱子碱（就其大小而言是最复杂的天然产物）的结构测定。在本文中，探讨了以下问题：谁应该因科学现象的发现而受到赞扬：首先发表正确解决方案但随后发表另一个（错误）解释并后来恢复到正确结构或几个类似物的个人（罗宾逊）？或者是第二个发布正确解决方案（以及其他支持数据）并且没有推翻自己的人（伍德沃德）？对美国授予博士学位的大学的化学家、数学家、生命科学家和社会科学家进行了一项调查，调查了学分分配和“第一但后来放弃与第二而坚定”之间的关系。此外，还对监察员、机构审查委员会成员以及以负责任的方式开展研究的个人进行了调查。该调查显示了受访者之间存在很大的差异，并支持这样的结论：即使在处理看似简单但重要的信用问题时，科学家的行为判断和决策也存在很大差异。