As Molla and Gardner point out - it’s not just that researchers get a raw deal when they are not 'first' or ‘last’ author, it's deeper and more insidious. Biomedical research is minutely and complexly regulated by the system, which it has produced itself, a self-perpetuating, positive (sic) feedback. The regulation is acted out through a well-barricaded,scientific/research culture. Many junior and senior scientists alike, acknowledge it is clearly in a local minimum.

The movie metaphor is interesting; it helps us to imagine a different world, but changing labels may not be enough. Close your eyes and you can hear Harvard faculty committees declaring that while Megan, is, “well, very very good,” she is only associate producer on all her papers. Can she really produce herself, or ultimately direct?

The system of biological research might easily adapt to any new rules despite intentions of a fair-promotion and a fair-funding paradise. We risk putting into place formalizations which are not much more than short lived nods to fairness.

I see two challenges. One is that we have to produce initial motivation to share glory, directed to those we predict will have the most influence (either through numbers or other means) and, the second is to produce an ontology of contribution which is most robust to initial abuse. Getting it right (or even getting it slightly better), might require something like dynamical studies of the feedback of any 'rules' put into place and how they might evolve; maybe we can guide policy formation by learning from biological systems.