Of the many examples of science getting nasty in the past, one could hardly do better than to revisit the &quot;invention&quot; of calculus. One which raged for at least two decades, and involved names now rightfully known to nearly the entire human race[1]. Then there&#x27;s the still unresolved mess of who discovered the structure of DNA and the question of whether the Nobel prize partly went to someone who &#x27;stole&#x27; the data &#x27;over the shoulder&#x27; of someone who should have received far more credit[2]. So over its long history I think we&#x27;ve been very consistent in our discreditable behavior of granting scientific credit; and notice that the business notions of <i>IP</i> are a very recent addition to this struggle.  When the treasure is seen as vast, and there&#x27;s clearly enough for all, that&#x27;s <i>exactly</i> when sharing is likely to be at a nadir; such is lamentable human nature <i>-sigh-</i><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculus_controversy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculu...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Rosalind_Franklin#Contribution_to_the_model_of_DNA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Rosalind_Franklin#Contribution...</a>