Publishing research in a peer-reviewed journal is a formidable challenge. The process demands meticulous methodology, thorough peer review, and strict adherence to formatting and authorship conventions.
However, in 1975, one physics paper circumvented these bureaucratic hurdles in an unconventional manner—by listing a cat as a co-author.
That feline, F.D.C. Willard, was credited as a co-author in the paper “Two-, Three-, and Four-Atom Exchange Effects in bcc ³He,” published in Physical Review Letters.
The study, conducted by Jack H. Hetherington, a physicist at Michigan State University, explored the behavior of the helium-3 isotope under various temperature conditions.
Despite its scientific rigor and lasting impact, the paper’s authorship contained an unusual twist that would later become an amusing footnote in academic history.
The Oversight That Led to a Feline Co-Author
Hetherington had meticulously prepared his manuscript and was confident in its contributions to condensed matter physics.
However, upon review, a colleague pointed out a critical formatting issue: the journal’s submission guidelines prohibited the use of “we” unless multiple authors were listed.
Unfortunately, revising the paper to use singular pronouns was a non-trivial task, as the manuscript had already been typed in its entirety.
Rather than undertaking an arduous re-editing process, Hetherington devised a creative solution.
He credited his Siamese cat, Chester, under the pseudonym F.D.C. Willard—Felis Domesticus Chester Willard.
The modification satisfied the journal’s requirements, and the paper was accepted without further scrutiny.
Thus, Chester became an officially published researcher in the field of quantum physics.
Why Not Add a Human Co-Author?
One might assume that a simpler solution would have been to add a human collaborator. However, Hetherington had his reasons for resisting this approach.
In academia, a researcher’s reputation and, in some cases, financial remuneration are tied to the number and impact of their publications.
Sharing credit with another physicist could have diluted his contribution and potentially affected his professional standing.
By choosing to list his cat instead, Hetherington maintained sole intellectual ownership of the work while simultaneously circumventing the journal’s restriction.
Additionally, he foresaw that, should the feline authorship be revealed, it would generate curiosity and, perhaps, even amusement within the scientific community—an early example of viral academic humor before the digital age.
The Unmasking of F.D.C. Willard
Hetherington’s scheme remained unnoticed until a visitor to Michigan State University requested a discussion with the elusive co-author, F.D.C. Willard.
When faculty members were unable to produce the so-called physicist, the truth emerged, and the academic community erupted in laughter.
Far from being reprimanded, Hetherington’s decision was largely met with amusement. Some editors, however, were less enthused, finding little humor in the incident.
Nevertheless, the revelation enhanced the paper’s visibility, inadvertently turning it into an academic curiosity that persists in discussions of scientific publishing ethics today.
A Legacy in Academic Publishing
Despite his accidental rise to fame, F.D.C. Willard did not fade into obscurity.
The feline physicist went on to “author” another article on helium-3, published solely under his pseudonym in the French journal La Recherche.
While his second publication did not achieve the same level of notoriety, it cemented his status as a unique, albeit unconventional, contributor to physics literature.
Decades later, the scientific community continued to acknowledge F.D.C. Willard’s peculiar legacy.
On April 1, 2014, the American Physical Society (APS) announced a tongue-in-cheek policy stating that all papers authored by cats would henceforth be available as open-access publications.
The APS humorously proclaimed:
“APS is proud to announce a new open access initiative designed to further extend the benefits of open access to a broader set of authors.
The new policy, effective today, makes all papers authored by cats freely available. … Not since Schrödinger has there been an opportunity like this for cats in physics.”
What This Tells Us About Academic Publishing
The story of F.D.C. Willard is more than just an amusing anecdote—it highlights several enduring aspects of scientific publishing.
First, it underscores the rigidity of formatting conventions in academic journals, which, while ensuring clarity and consistency, can sometimes lead to unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles.
Second, it illustrates the importance of creativity in problem-solving.
Hetherington’s decision, while unconventional, allowed him to navigate an otherwise cumbersome revision process without compromising the integrity of his research.
Lastly, it serves as a cautionary tale and a humorous reminder that the credibility of an academic work should be based on its merit rather than the formality of authorship.
While a cat can (technically) become a published researcher, true expertise and rigorous peer review remain the cornerstones of scientific progress.
In the end, F.D.C. Willard’s contributions—however dubious—continue to amuse and inspire scientists, proving that sometimes, the most extraordinary academic stories come with whiskers and a tail.
