I disagree. I thought the article's title was misleading. It was Justice Thomas's name that uncovered the bug, if anything. Justice Thomas himself had nothing to do with it other than his name.
He caused the bug to be exposed to another, he did not discover it, as he did not know there was a bug or that he had any sort of relation with it.
He was part of a phenomenon, someone else was the observer and discoverer of the phenomenon.
The lab rat did not discover rna.
However, the title says "uncovered" not discovered, and as someone else pointed out you could parse the title as referring merely to the text string and not the person.
Those 2 things do kinda make it at least arguable. I think this title would make it through court on a technicality!
