Yes, like Watson & Crick and lots of others have shown over the years by lighting the way with proper accreditation. /s

Science is a means to an end, the 'giving proper credit' bit has been under fire since the day that someone figured out that citations can bestow fame (hardly every fortune) and given the low stakes it is to be expected that that is the battleground. But the number of PhD students that have been screwed out of proper credit to further aggrandize their academic masters can probably not be enumerated any more, so let's not pretend that proper credit is the coin that makes academia function.

>Yes, like Watson & Crick and lots of others have shown over the years by lighting the way with proper accreditation. /s

This just in: A wrong thing become right when famous people (allegedly) do it. More at 9.

And that's aside from the fact that you're wrong on the particular case of W&C.

> This just in: A wrong thing become right when famous people (allegedly) do it. More at 9.

I'm pretty sure the claim was that it's not so "fundamental", not about right or wrong.

Watson and Crick gave all necessary and proper attributions.

The parent is referring to the fact that Watson and Crick relied on work of Rosalind Franklin without crediting her.

Watson and Crick's 1953 Nature paper says "We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr. R. E. Franklin and their co-workers at King's College, London."

Also, Franklin's paper follows W&C in Nature: https://www.mskcc.org/teaser/1953-nature-papers-watson-crick...

I know what they meant. The W&C paper literally thanks her for her work. Stop spreading falsehoods.

> Just look at the Chinese academic system to see what happens to science when people are given free reign to plagiarise.

Can you explain what this means? It's a pretty broad statement.

Please elaborate on what has happened in the Chinese academic system?