Authors - alphabetical vs. by contribution

After my first post on Authors and who goes on papers I have received quite a few emails from people and had some interesting discussions with some of my colleagues. It seems that everyone has a good story on this topic. Something that I've noticed can give rise to some heated discussions is whether authors should be listed alphabetically or according to how much they have contributed, i.e. the first author did most. From what I've gathered so far the alphabetical system seems to be a chemistry thing. When I mention this concept to people in biology/biochemistry they are outraged. In their area you really need to be the first or second author for the paper to carry any serious weight on your publication list. After thinking a bit about all this I have reached two conclusions that may or may not be right:

-

(1) The alphabetical system only benefits the supervisor. The supervisor no longer has to have any troublesome discussions about who did what.

-

(2) The contribution system also benefits the people that actually did the work. In many academic institutions and companies they look for first authorship's on papers. This is the only way they can determine if people did any meaningful science. From third author and down they could have ended up on the paper for close to nothing.

-

And then there are the supervisors that mix things up:

-

(1) Many supervisors will always put themselves last and everyone else by alphabet?

-

(2) Others will always put themselves first and everyone else alphabetical (or by contribution). I suspect they do this so that the paper will be referred to as "supervisors name" et al. rather than "students name" et al.

-

I have been through two alphabetical places and four by contribution places and I have reached the conclusion that if you want your name at pole position (at the alphabetical places) you just have to do all the work yourself. And finally just in case anyone thinks that I'm moaning and I'm unhappy about how things have panned out for me - I'm not - I just thought the topic was interesting. D!