We were dealing with apparent decomposition product of "immutable" Mirex used in very effective bait for imported fire ant. This process was a big mystery to us all at the time, so I wondered why the Science publication was not referenced: Mirex in the environment: Its degradation to kepone and related compounds Article in Science 194(4268):939-41 · December 1976 DOI: 10.1126/science.62396 · Source: PubMed 1st David Arthur Carlson 50.88 · University of Florida 2nd K D Konyha + 1 3rd W B Wheeler Last R G Zaylskie Show more authors Abstract The chlorocarbon mirex undergoes slow, successive loss of chlorine in the field to a series of related compounds that had lost one or more chlorine atoms. Soil samples were recovered 12 years after treatment at 1 part per million (ppm), and ant bait was recovered 5 years after an aircraft crash. As much as 50 percent of the original mirex was recovered at levels of about 0.5 and 640 ppm, respectively. Kepone was present at levels of 0.02 ppm in soil and 10 ppm in the bait or up to 10 percent of the recovered mirex, as determined by combined techniques of chromatography and mass spectrometry. This constitutes the first observation of the degradation of mirex in nature, and demonstrates a pathway for its eventual disappearance from the environment.
Sometimes citing a paper suggests only a specific point of information or study method or technique are being cited, not necessary all content of citation is being applied in the process. Perhaps the citation has to deal with research of a certain type, within a certain technical area or responsive to a geology or ecological setting. Unless you feel that you were mis-cited or mis-represented, you should be just thankful that someone felt your work was sufficiently good and justified a citation relative to another research work. If your ideas were misapplied or taken in detail without authorization, it is probably best to discuss this with the researcher, with care and consideration. Citation of preliminary works suggests high integrity is being used and applied to circumstance.
Posting preliminary ideas has some potential for issues to develop that you may not recognize. If your goal is to advance science, the sharing and expansion of ideas is important without regard of who gets credit. However, if you have found some important scientific discovery, the premature disclosure before idea is patented or adequately documented has brought problems, and best to be avoided if you want full credit. In some instances, keeping good log or records of timing, sharing or presentations, documentation over time, etc. can add protection if disagreements develop.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. We worried about any publication at all, since the first paper was rejected by Science. However the Mirex dechlorination/ decomposition effort was extremely controversial at the time, since the well-developed Mirex bait was likely to be lost forever. The USDA scientists who developed this excellent bait were very unhappy, some rejecting our data. But then Kepone/Chlordecone was found to be contaminating seafood in the entire Chesapeake Bay, and it persisted even worse, binding to substrates of salty mud! Since our succeeding paper further described the decomposition of Mirex including Kepone and its daughters, this effort became even more relevant as we were working on it. The Secretary of Agriculture complimented me in his Washington DC office 2 days after its first presentation in AmChemSoc/ San Francisco. And yes, this paper was accepted while Mirex bait went away. This may have been the last chlorinated hydrocarbon publication in Science.
Now, that is a tricky one. I suggest you contact the authors of the paper citing your work. They probably have their own peculiar reasons that might not be immediately obvious to us.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agriculture
- Soil Science