Scientific Research

Public disputes concerning scientific research, research methods, authorship, credit, collaboration, publication, and research conduct.

Browse cases, people, and recent statements connected to this topic. How we classify topics

Coverage

People and organizations

Andreas Thom Peter Woit Mark Chen Nan Jiang Andreas Kirsch Sébastien Bubeck Sam Altman Levent Alpöge Samuel Davenport Anshul Kundaje Will Depue Thomas Wolf Noam Brown Vincent WooOpenAI

Cases on this topic

Case

Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Tristan Buckmaster describes pressure over authorship and publication during discussions about competing AI-assisted mathematics results. Sébastien Bubeck disputes that characterization and says the proposed authorship concerned OpenAI's own proof. His apology for career-related wording does not settle the disagreement. Researchers and commentators divide over whether the negotiations were appropriate, while raising a separate dispute about the treatment of unpublished user research.

Recent statements

Andreas Thom

Role at the time: Mathematician describing his own experience and ethical concerns in a personal public post

September 9, 2026Challenged the characterization

Responding to

Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

"De-identification may remove a name; it does not remove the intellectual content of a mathematical idea."

Why we used this label

He questions the sufficiency and transparency of OpenAI's account while presenting the ethical objection conditionally. This is adjacent firsthand context, not proof of theft or misconduct in the Buckmaster authorship dispute.

Andreas Thom questions OpenAI's explanation of unpublished research and user dataThom's numbered 2/3 post replying in the Buckmaster discussion

Our account of this statement has been corrected.

1 correction

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Peter Woit

Role at the time: Signed author of Not Even Wrong

September 9, 2026Mixed or conditional

Responding to

Woit argues AI-assisted mathematical announcements should disclose methods, prompts, training data and timing so priority and process can be examined.

"exactly how was this done?"

Why we used this label

Concrete process demand without claiming independently to have established the disputed facts.

Peter Woit: A Modest Proposal

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Mark Chen

Role at the time: OpenAI researcher explaining the company's process on his account

September 8, 2026Challenged the characterization

Responding to

OpenAI says its researchers and agents did not access Buckmaster and Alpöge's unpublished work for the project.

"Did any human or agent look at user data as part of the Navier Stokes effort? No."

Why we used this label

Narrow factual counter-position; does not eliminate the company's caveat about general training data.

Mark Chen distinguishes targeted user-data access from model improvement

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Nan Jiang

Role at the time: Personal response to Bubeck's explanation

September 8, 2026Condemned

Responding to

Jiang argues that even an offer of authorship on OpenAI's proof did not justify unilaterally excluding the other team's collaborator.

"you unilaterally tried to dictate who from other side can stay on the paper"

Why we used this label

A substantive criticism that survives the distinction between the two teams' proofs.

Nan Jiang challenges the proposed authorship arrangements after Bubeck's clarification

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Andreas Kirsch

Role at the time: Personal public response

September 8, 2026Mixed or conditional

Responding to

Bubeck says the disputed authorship proposal concerned a rewrite of OpenAI's proof, not removing Alpöge from his own work.

"The whole thing is def very messy"

Why we used this label

Qualified acceptance of the explanation without declaring the whole dispute resolved.

Andreas Kirsch gives a qualified response to Bubeck's account

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Sébastien Bubeck

Role at the time: OpenAI participant replying directly to Alpöge

September 8, 2026Challenged the characterization

Responding to

Alpöge says his exclusion appeared to be a settled condition of the proposed collaboration.

"nothing at all was locked"

Why we used this label

Direct denial of the characterization that the outcome was predetermined.

Bubeck directly disputes Alpöge's account of closed negotiations

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Sam Altman

Role at the time: OpenAI leader who says he spent the weekend speaking with the team

September 8, 2026Defended or excused

Responding to

OpenAI improperly pressured the researchers over authorship and publication of the mathematical results.

"acted with integrity and generosity throughout"

Why we used this label

Explicit interested defense of the company's intentions and actions.

Sam Altman defends the team and explains its proposed publication arrangements

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Levent Alpöge

Role at the time: Collaborator who says he overheard the hallway conversation, not a participant in the calls

September 8, 2026Condemned

Responding to

Alpöge says his exclusion appeared to be a settled condition of the proposed collaboration.

"i actually woulda been pumped to collaborate on this"

Why we used this label

Criticizes the terms while affirming support for inter-lab scientific collaboration.

Alpöge describes his willingness to collaborate and what he heard

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Samuel Davenport

Role at the time: Personal public response to Bubeck

September 8, 2026Challenged the characterization

Responding to

Bubeck says the disputed authorship proposal concerned a rewrite of OpenAI's proof, not removing Alpöge from his own work.

"That is clearly contradictory."

Why we used this label

Challenges the coherence of the credit explanation, not the mathematical proof.

Samuel Davenport challenges the coherence of the credit explanation

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Sébastien Bubeck

Role at the time: OpenAI participant giving his firsthand account

September 8, 2026Challenged the characterization

Responding to

Bubeck says the disputed authorship proposal concerned a rewrite of OpenAI's proof, not removing Alpöge from his own work.

"I never ever asked for Levent to be removed from authorship of his own work"

Why we used this label

Direct counter-characterization, with a limited apology rather than a withdrawal of his defense.

Bubeck's full numbered response on authorship, the calls and technical process

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Anshul Kundaje

Role at the time: Personal public response

September 8, 2026Mixed or conditional

Responding to

OpenAI says its researchers and agents did not access Buckmaster and Alpöge's unpublished work for the project.

"very clear legally binding statements"

Why we used this label

Conditional policy demand rather than a finding of misconduct in this case.

Anshul Kundaje calls for clear policies protecting researchers

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Will Depue

Role at the time: Personal response citing prior work with Bubeck

September 8, 2026Defended or excused

Responding to

OpenAI improperly pressured the researchers over authorship and publication of the mathematical results.

"extraordinary allegations require extraordinary evidence"

Why we used this label

A provisional defense, not a claim to have witnessed the disputed calls.

Will Depue urges nuance and evidence before accepting allegations

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Thomas Wolf

Role at the time: Personal public response

September 8, 2026Condemned

Responding to

OpenAI improperly pressured the researchers over authorship and publication of the mathematical results.

"marketing games hurtful for the real scientific community"

Why we used this label

Condemnation of the reported conduct, qualified by an explicit request to hear the other account.

Thomas Wolf criticizes the reported handling of researchers and asks to hear both sides

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Noam Brown

Role at the time: OpenAI research collaborator, speaking on his own account

September 8, 2026Defended or excused

Responding to

OpenAI improperly pressured the researchers over authorship and publication of the mathematical results.

"Seb is a really sweet guy with great intentions"

Why we used this label

Character-and-intentions defense only; it does not independently rebut each allegation.

Noam Brown defends Bubeck's intentions

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

Vincent Woo

Role at the time: Personal public response

September 8, 2026Condemned

Responding to

OpenAI improperly pressured the researchers over authorship and publication of the mathematical results.

"A bit cutthroat, I think."

Why we used this label

Explicit negative assessment of the handling of credit.

Vincent Woo criticizes the reported competition for credit

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?

OpenAI

Role at the time: Company publication

September 8, 2026Challenged the characterization

Responding to

OpenAI says its researchers and agents did not access Buckmaster and Alpöge's unpublished work for the project.

"no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem."

Why we used this label

Official denial with an express limitation, not a blanket statement that user interactions never affected training.

OpenAI's Navier–Stokes announcement and research timeline - OpenAI

Read statement Did OpenAI improperly pressure mathematicians over authorship and credit?