In reply to Alyson:
> the astronomer Jocelyn Bell Burnell. She discovered pulsars while studying as an undergrad at Cambridge but her supervisor took the credit and subsequently the Nobel Prize for physics which should have been hers.
The story is indeed often told that way, but the story is more complicated than that.
Suppose you spend your career developing techniques of radio astronomy, with both theoretical advances and advances in the instrumentation. From that, you conceive of a whole new way of doing radio astronomy, and design an instrument to do it. You then go out and get funding to build it, and manage its construction.
After you've pursued this for 15 years your new radio telescope starts observing. At that point pulsars are "low hanging fruit". That new radio telescope was now sensitive enough that it would start finding pulsars sooner or later, and likely sooner.
In the first year of its operation, a graduate student, who had only been on the project for less than a year, happens to be the one on observer's duty when the telescope scans across the first pulsar.
Now, that graduate student then does a superb job of following up the observations, getting more of them, suggesting new ways to analyse the new type of object. That student fully deserves a large slice of the credit.
But, is it fair to say that the supervisor "took the credit"? Isn't there a fair argument that he fully deserves the lion's share of the credit, and was actually the one primarily responsible for the discovery?
Maybe it would have been better if Jocelyn Bell Burnell had shared in the Nobel Prize, with Ryle and Hewish, but there is no doubt that Hewish fully deserved his reward.