RE: JVP, SVP...too many 'VP's...

["Jerry D. Harris" <dinogami@hotmail.com>]

  Ah, we're back to this subject again...I'll try to keep this on the 
dinosaurian front to remain on list topic...

> Actually, the Socialists for Vertebrate Paleontology have now gone further
> than that.  If I understand Kevin Padian's recent letter to Science
> correctly, it is now considered unethical to study fossils that are not
> themselves politically correct.  Specifically, Dr. Padian sniffs at
> Bambiraptor and regards any science based on it as dubious -- because the
> fossil is privately owned.  Apparently, unless the means of scientific
> production are owned by the State, it isn't science.

  Since I haven't had time to visit the library of late, I haven't seen the 
specific article in question and cannot address its specifics, but the 
concept of not studying privately-held fossils trancends this article.  
While I admit the allure of many privately-held specimens is powerful, I too 
feel that one must severly limit the formal publication of privately-held 
specimens for several reasons.  Typically, the argument against the 
scientific "acknowledgement" of privately-held specimens has been phrased as 
"scientific repeatability."  These clothes are appropriate, if 
loose-fitting: a privately-held specimen is not, in the broadest sense, 
available to anyone wishing to study it.  The owners could easily, and 
legally, forbid certain parties to view it, thus potentially biasing 
published interpretations of the fossil's nature -- if persons with 
potentially different viewpoints cannot view the material, then the 
"experiment" of studying it cannot be repeated.  Repeatability is, of 
course, a keystone of scientific methodology.  Many specimens which were 
previously privately held, although known to exist for a long time, were not 
published in part for this reason (e.g., the specimen of _Acrocanthosaurus_ 
now at the North Carolina museum).  Owners may flatly refuse to allow 
_anyone_ to view, or publish on, a privately-held specimen (I believe this 
was the case with the now-stolen Maxburg specimen of _Archaeopteryx_).  How 
is one to publish on a specimen that, scientifically, exists only as a few, 
dark, old photographs?  Lastly, what happens if the owner packs up his 
fossil and moves away to parts unknown, leaving no forwarding address?  Even 
if s/he previously allowed many to study the fossil, it has been effectively 
removed from the scientific realm -- I know of a few specimens to which this 
has happened.  We're back to repeatability.  We cannot say that any given 
publication on a specimen is eternally complete -- new perspectives and 
approaches in the future may certainly warrant restudy, so the specimen must 
be perpetually available.

  Specimens reposited in public institutions are, in contrast, and by legal 
mandate, held in the public's interest, and available to be seen by any 
qualified scientist and, if my limited knowledge of the law is correct, even 
by any member of the public (although stipulations about prearranged 
appointments and supervision usually apply).  However, unlike privately-held 
specimens, publicly reposited specimens rarely change houses and, when they 
do, typically change to another public collection.  They are available 
(theoretically) to any scientist, regardless of their hypotheses.  More 
importantly, they are also available to educate the public if put on 
display, something which cannot be said for virtually any privately-held 
specimen.  Although I loathe the monetary problems it has caused, I am 
relieved that "Sue" the tyrannosaur is now in a public institution and on 
display, where it can be studied by the public and scientists alike.

> SVP's political initiation tests are beginning to sound like the old 
> >Soviet
> system of requiring a Party card or equivalent proof of political 
> >orthodoxy
> before permitting a student to do serious scientific work.  Lysenko >would
> be proud of SVP, and certainly the folks on the Kansas Board of >Education
> would understand SVP's attitude, if not the particular sentiments
> expressed.

  My reading of SVP's mandates are that they are intended to protect the 
fossils and the science from malignant intentions.  Should we allow persons 
of alternative evolutionary viewpoint (hey Mickey -- how's that for a nice 
euphemism to avoid the "c" word?  ;-D  ) to publish there?  Should we allow 
commercial collectors to publish on specimens that they sold to an anonymous 
person across the ocean?  Every group has rules based on the majority 
interest of its members (democracy, of course), and though the debates rage, 
the interests of the fossils and of paleontology, as held by the majority of 
the present membership, still predominates.

                _,_
           ____/_\,)                    ..  _  
--____-===(  _\/                         \\/ \-----_---__
           /\  '                        ^__/>/\____\--------
__________/__\_ ____________________________.//__.//_________

                     Jerry D. Harris
                 Fossil Preparation Lab
          New Mexico Museum of Natural History
                   1801 Mountain Rd NW
               Albuquerque  NM  87104-1375
                 Phone:  (505) 841-2809
                  Fax: ; (505) 841-2808
           >>>>> dinogami@hotmail.com <<<<<

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com