Wanted – best/funniest/strangest Acknowledgements sections from papers

I was reading a paper recently which had an awkward acknowledgements sections and I thought it might be fun to make a collection of papers with unusual such sections. So I am putting out a call here – do people know any good examples of strange or funny or exceptionally long or otherwise interesting acknowledgement sections from papers? Please post them here or on twitter/friendfeed and I will eventually post a list

Author: Jonathan Eisen

I am an evolutionary biologist and a Professor at U. C. Davis. (see my lab site here). My research focuses on the origin of novelty (how new processes and functions originate). To study this I focus on sequencing and analyzing genomes of organisms, especially microbes and using phylogenomic analysis

9 thoughts on “Wanted – best/funniest/strangest Acknowledgements sections from papers”

  1. “Sincere thanks to Enrico Bernard, Brock Fenton, Moe Gregory, and John
    Ratcliffe who graciously provided blood samples.”

    Gregory, TR. (2000). Genome 43: 895-901.

    Moe being my cat.


  2. “I thank the National Science Foundation for regularly rejecting my (honest) grant applications for work on real organisms (cf. Szent-Gyorgyi, 1972), thus forcing me into theoretical work.”

    Van Valen (1973). A new Evolutionary Law. Evolutionary Theory 1:1-30.


  3. My dad tells the story of his late colleague Ken Eskins. Ken won an argument with an editor who was skeptical of a result, and in the end, Ken's article got published. In Ken's very next experiment, he proved himself wrong. The follow-up article included phrases like “Recently we reported what appeared to be…” and “In the present study we attempt to resolve that problem….”

    The best part of the article, though, is the acknowledgements section: “The authors wish to thank Edith Crowe for helpful work in establishing equilibrium conditions.”

    Eskins, K., McCarthy, S. A., Dybas, L. and Duysen, M. (1986), Corn chloroplast development in weak fluence rate red light and in weak fluence rate red plus far red light. Physiologia Plantarum, 67: 242–246. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.1986.tb02450.x


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s