How To Appreciate Fossils Without Ruining It For Science

[UPDATE 25-11-2015: The hadrosaur bone listed by ThinkGeek has been removed. At the time of the writing of this post on 30-10-2014 the issue was pending.]

[Big thanks to @BlackMudpuppy for both the post and title idea! Go check out his comic!]

I had so many posts planned before this particular topic. Tyrannosaur trackways. North America's earliest known bird footprints. You know, real science-y stuff that I have been directly working on since the start of the summer. Instead, my muse must be directed towards the ever contentious issue of the commercial fossil trade.

I wanted my next post on the commercial fossil trade to focus on the positive role that a fossil shop in France played in reuniting the skull and feet of Deinocheirus (which had been illegally removed, or poached, from Mongolia) with the rest of the specimen. Happy ending stories can and do happen, but unfortunately they are outweighed by the stories of greed and lack of forethought.

ThinkGeek, a popular online store that boasts an impressive array of geek-targeted wares (from home decor to cubicle toys) recently posted a product: people can buy real dinosaur bone. Go see for yourself. This is one of the few times I recommend reading the comments section. I'll wait here with my tea.

As you read in the comments section, a few paleontologists and fossil enthusiasts have voiced their concerns over the ethics of treating fossils, an irreplaceable, non-renewable (in our lifetime) natural history heritage resource, as a "product". In response to a comment left by paleontologist Jim Kirkland, a ThinkGeek representative stated this:

There are issues glaring out at us from this paragraph:
1. Who exactly verified these fossils? Contrary to what this statement would have you believe, there is no third party oversight body or committee that verifies fossils for legal or ethical issues before sale. No paleontologist has come forth to state that they checked over these fossils and that they are OK to sell. There is also no way to know if the dealer/supplier is conducting their work legally or ethically. Unfortunately, ThinkGeek to date has not supplied the information on their dealer, which does not allow the fossil consumer to decide if they are making an ethical purchase.
2. If they are so weathered and out of context, how do they know this is hadrosaur bone? If there are identifying features on these bones that allow us to know they are hadrosaurid, that's science. That material is important to some researcher somewhere. There are a couple of scenarios: that the material is just being guessed at as hadrosaur based on size, or that there is associated material that is complete enough to identify as belonging to a hadrosaur. If the latter is the case, what is the fate of that more complete material?
3. Appeals to emotion as logic. What we see here is a marketing ploy: the way to appreciation and inspiration is direct ownership. There is the appeal to emotion hidden not so subtly in here as well of "Won't someone please think of the children?" These are the tired tactics of commercial fossil supporters, and that is the main point I want this post to address.

Now that the background reading is out of the way, let's focus on ethical fossil love.

How to Ethically Love Fossils

You are a fossil enthusiast, and you want to develop a closer and deeper connection with the life of the past. You also want to make sure that your interests are not directly or inadvertently supporting shady doings (e.g. poaching and illegal fossil export, accidentally removing scientific access by buying a fossil, etc.) You are in luck. There are so many ways in which the Fossil Lover can support science, science education, and a sustainable use of fossil heritage resources!

1. Donate your time to your nearest natural history museum! Museum activities such as educational outreach, fossil archiving, fossil preparation, and even fieldwork thrive when there is a strong, dedicated volunteer base. Volunteers made field discoveries, lab discoveries, and inspire countless children with their enthusiasm and dedication. This is a great way to become part of the story of the fossils you love!

2. (If you are financially able) Donate funds to your nearest museum! In these times of budget cuts and downsizing (particularly focused on research and collections of museums) museums are expected to rely more heavily on external donations. These donations pave the way for renovations and research chairs (guaranteed funding for paleontology research), which are necessary to bring the story of fossils to life. Imagine this: a new dinosaur is discovered because you funded an endowed research chair, or funded an ongoing field project. You have the power to enable these advancements.

3. Support public outreach events: attend talks at your local museum! Fossils are a great gateway to exposing people to science and nature. Fossils are not just a remote part of our past from which we are disconnected: the story of fossils is our story. I recommend checking out the outreach work of Dr. Scott Sampson (yes, Dr. Scott from Dinosaur Train): he makes fantastic connections between fossils and science outreach. The more information you gather, the better you can promote your own love of our past life!

4. Purchase fossil replicas instead of fossil heritage resources! There are several places where museum-quality replicas of your favorite dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures can be purchased. Fossil replicas are great: they are renewable, they are durable, and they are much less expensive than an original fossil. Here is a small (and not complete!) list of companies who sell fossil replicas of dinosaurs, and their replica work can be viewed in natural history museums worldwide. [DISCLOSURE NOTE: some companies also sell original fossil material. I want to encourage and promote the sale of fossil replicas whenever I can.]

Gaston Designs - We have two of their ankylosaur skeletons (Gastonia and Animantarx) in our display gallery.
Triebold Paleontology, Inc. - A large selection of replicas of dinosaurs, marine reptiles, flying reptiles, and more.
Black Hills Institute - A cast of their Acrocanthosaurus is in our display gallery, menacing the Gaston Designs ankylosaurs.

There is also a growing trend of 3D digital sharing, where, if a person has the right equipment, can download a 3D image file and print off their very own fossil replica. As more museums are able to secure the funds to digitize and publicly upload their collections (this takes a great many staff hours and equipment upgrades, and is a slow process - I'm in the process of getting just 2D images of our collections online, and even that takes time), and as the technology becomes more accessible, I see 3D digital fossil replicas being an ethical alternative to purchasing original fossil material. Check out these sites for downloadable 3D digital replicas and information:

africanfossils.org - featuring artifacts and fossils from West Africa
Digital Morphology - information on their scanning work and digital files of several animals
University of Arkansas Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies

5. Are you a private land owner who has fossils on their land? Contact your local schools and work with classrooms to help them create their own teaching collections. Better still, involve a paleontologist from a nearby museum - that K-12 driven display could be a great collaborative project that is displayed in a museum, or become part of a student's museum studies project.

6. For private land owners: if you charge museums to prospect on your land, please be aware that museums cannot afford the same access fees or the "market value" of vertebrate fossils that commercial businesses can afford.

7. Are you a K-12 educator? There are many ways in which to inspire children in paleontology that do not involve the purchase of a single fossil. Contact your local museum, or your closest university: there are many researchers and student-researchers who are passionate about science education, and who would love to work with you to develop a natural history-themed curriculum.

8. Are you a heavy equipment or technology company? You can make a huge impact by donating equipment time and your own expertise to field, display, and archiving projects! Much of our helicopter time and crane operator time has been donated, and we would not have been able to complete many projects without such in-kind donations.

9. Are you often out of doors on public lands? Be aware of what fossil heritage resources are around you, and keep a sharp eye out for poachers and vandals. Report any suspicious activity to the local state/provincial public land authorities. The same goes for fossil discoveries on public lands: report these right away to the land management authorities. Many people make the well-meaning but ill-advised mistake of trying to remove new discoveries to protect them. This ends up damaging the fossils and surrounding data. It's hard to say "I'm sorry" to 110 million year old information.

This is just a small handful of ways in which you can express your appreciation for fossils without having to purchase them. It is my great wish to see appreciation and respect for fossils not expressed in terms of ownership of fossil heritage resources. One does not have to own a thing in order to love it, and the ethical alternatives to fossil ownership have the potential to provide meaningful, lasting connections to the life of the past. How you will influence the future of paleontology remains to be seen, but the best way to start is to get involved. That chapter of Earth's history is waiting to be written.

(This post and the information contained within would not have been possible without great info and links from Andrew Farke, John Steward, and yes, even ThinkGeek. Without their sale of vertebrate fossils online and their tissue paper thin reasoning behind said sales, the inspiration for this post would have come in the unforeseeable future.)

UPDATE 01-11-14:

Lee Hall at the blog Extinct Los Angeles posted his letter to ThinkGeek regarding the subject. Lee details exactly why selling fossils is a dangerous precedent to set for science education, and his post also contains links to other great places to purchase research quality fossil replicas.

Also, my comment on the ThinkGeek site was quoted by The Mary Sue in their coverage of ThinkGeek's fossil faux pas. (As of this update, the comment section is open.)

As of now, ThinkGeek has put the sale of these items on hold. Here is the statement on their website:

"Many of you have concerns about these dinosaur bone fragments and we want to take a moment to address that. We agree that harvesting fossils from federal and public land is not only wrong, it's illegal. The vendor that supplies us with these specimens has confirmed that they have been obtained from privately leased lands and out of situ.

An independent scientist has also examined our specimens, and has determined that there is no scientific value that can be gained from the fossils in their current state, which confirms what a large number of you have also stated.

Here's what is going to happen next: We've put the sale of the fossils on hold for now because next week there is an annual gathering of paleontologists and we are expecting that they will publish a letter on the topic of selling fossils. We will abide by their decision. For now, thank you for your thoughts and passion, and please be sure to respect each other in the comments."

Who is the paleontologist, and is ThinkGeek quoting their assessment accurately? I'll explain why I ask this question. Many paleontologists are shown material once it has been removed from the surrounding rock. If a paleontologist has not had the opportunity to investigate the source locality for this bone, they are missing a great chunk of the information: location, rock formation, the relationship of that fossil to other fossils (other dinosaur bone, plants, pollen, invertebrates). Fossils removed from the rock without having the site examined are therefore considered "less scientifically valuable" than those fossils that are investigated while still in the ground. Note: this is not a loop-hole to start ripping fossils out of the ground in order to sell them. This is a reminder that, by simply removing fossils from their source without a thorough examination of the source is the equivalent of ignoring or destroying data.

ThinkGeek does not have to wait for the annual Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting to know the stance of members of the paleontology community: there are official Society statements that have been made in regards to the sale of high-profile specimens, such as T. rex. The issue with these statements is the "scientifically significant" wording. Scientifically significant does not always mean complete and showy, which is what many people think when they hear "significant". Also, unless the site and the source of the material is assessed by a trained professional (not just the individual pieces), how is anyone to know the significance?

ThinkGeek, you have the opportunity to do the ethically sound thing: sell casts of fossils. I am sure any one of these companies would be happy to work with you.

Fossil Commercialism and the Threat to Paleontology, Part 3: The Outreach

I recently did some consulting work on an i09.com article with Mika McKinnon entitled "Fossil Poaching and the Black Market in Dinosaur Bones". This is an article that was inspired by a discussion thread of "What Mysterious Creature Left These 190-Million-Year-Old Footprints?" on the issues surrounding the commercial fossil trade and private ownership of fossils among myself, artiofab, and someone who regretted not buying a trilobite trackway.

Please take a moment to read the "Fossil Poaching and the Black Market in Dinosaur Bones" article. It's full of juicy links to other media that highlight the issues with which academic paleontologists are concerned in regards to fossil heritage conservation.

The article does what very few discussion threads (or the media) address when tackling this quagmire of an issue: it suggests possible solutions that are neither "All selling and private ownership is evil!" nor "Have a Fossil Sellapalloza or you hate children's dreams!" It's a middle of the road approach that I think would benefit all parties in the long run (except those parties conducting illegal activities or exploiting impoverished areas by encouraging illegal activities.) I've summarized them below:

1. Develop a system to provide proof of legal collection.
- Did that specimen come from China? Likely illegally collected and exported. Is that tyrannosaur Mongolian in origin? That specimen was poached. Perhaps it is just me, but I can't imagine wanting to own anything that was illegally collected.
2. Have a review body of scientists clear items for sale.
- I like this suggestion, because it has the added benefit of the review body also being able to put sellers in touch with institutions that could archive the specimen, and working with them to develop a fair price or donation.
3. Regulated pricing of heritage items.
- Resources are involved when collecting fossils and preparing them, but having some sort of price cap (cost of collecting and preparing the specimen, plus a percentage?) would not only give museums a chance to realistically purchase a specimen for the public trust, but may help to discourage the illegal trade.
4 & 6. Register fossils in a private archives.
- As I've stated in a previous post, I would love to develop a Citizen Archives Program. The Citizen Archivist would be an official branch of our museum. They would be trained in the proper archiving techniques, and all specimens would officially be part of the museum's archives. Archives would be reviewed regularly to ensure that proper practices (e.g. no selling off or trading archived fossils, etc.), and there would be an agreement as to where the fossils went after the cessation of activity of the Archivist.
5. Remove fossils from the luxury market.
- How the hell did it become the "thing" to have a fossil in your home as a piece of art? I understand that fossils are fantastically fascinating and awe-inspiring, but that doesn't mean that they should be treated like art purchased from a gallery. People once wore dead birds on hats as a fashionable accessory: the "Plume Boom" in the early 1900s saw hundreds of millions of birds killed worldwide for the millinery trade. I would love the idea of owning "rare" fossils (the poor theropods seem to bear the brunt of fashion, extant or extinct) to become as fashionable as me wearing this to my next conference:

Umm..ma'am. I hate to intrude, but you have an ex-bird on your head. Image source: www.diaryofavintagegirl.com

I've also been contributing to the comments section of the article, clarifying issues and, in one case, trying to steer a comment back on track. I'm hoping that people will test-discuss some possible solutions, and I will discuss some of these solutions in future posts. If you have any ideas, please contribute to the discussion!

Fossil Commercialism and the Threat to Paleontology, Part 2: The Rebuttal

Hello, Dear Readers!

A rebuttal commentary to the Shimada et al. (2014) paper in Palaeontologia Electronica entitled "The greatest challenge to 21st century paleontology: When commercialization of fossils threatens the science" has arrived! Larson and Russell (2014) have provided an article in support for commercialism in vertebrate paleontology entitled "The benefits of commercial fossil sales to 21st-century paleontology." Please take a moment to read the article before continuing to read this post.

To start with my comments, I think it is a well crafted rebuttal that goes through the history of commercialism in paleontology, and highlights some of the best-case scenarios where everything worked out in the best interest of the fossil resources and the depository of public knowledge. It (mostly) avoids the more reactionary responses that one usually sees on the paleontology-related list servers, and calls for greater co-operation among all parties involved with the care of fossil heritage resources. That being said, there are a few pits into which the logical framework of this article falls, and they are pitfalls that, in my opinion, do nothing to further the discussion of how to resolve the seemingly diametrically opposed positions of commercialism vs. conservation.

1. The "We've Always Done It This Way" Argument.
The commercial sale of vertebrate fossil heritage items is nothing new to the realm of vertebrate paleontology. Famous fossil collectors such as the Sternbergs were commissioned by museums to collect and prepare fossil specimens. This is well-known paleontology history for North America. While the situation back in the early days of the establishment of vertebrate paleontology collections produced a mutually beneficial relationship between academia and commercialism, it is just that: history. As the science of paleontology has evolved over the last century, so too must the commercial operations evolve. They have, to an extent: some scientifically important specimens do end up in public repositories. However, the day that the icon of the dinosaur world, Tyrannosaurus rex, went for sale at public auction for $8.3 million, was the day that people started associating fossils with swimming pools full of money. Gaining access to private lands in the US became prohibitively expensive for researchers. Poaching on federal lands increased. As quoted from a federal employee in the Washington Post article (link above):

“After Sue sold, it was truly frightening,” said Vincent L. Santucci, a National Park Service geologist who spent years investigating fossil poachers. “You heard people saying, ‘I’m going to give up my blue-collar job and move out West to find my million-dollar dinosaur.’ And it was worth the risk doing it on federal lands because of the economic rewards that might be gained.”

This is the mentality that associating dinosaurs (or any vertebrate fossil) with dollars now engenders: the get rich quick dream, the quest for the quick buck. This was likely the mentality behind the three examples outlined by Larson and Russell of ill-conceived attempts at making money off of fossil heritage resources: the illegally smuggled Tarbosaurus (one of my posts on the subject here, full of great links), the bill “HB 392", and the attempted public auction of the fossils within the Sternberg Collection at the San Diego Natural History Museum (the link provided in Larson and Russell leads to an error page on the museum's website: either the SDNHM removed the page or there is a typo in the link.) An item that was not highlighted by Larson and Russell was the "Dueling Dinosaurs" controversy, where a specimen that was speculated to be of scientific importance (a long read, but worth it) was offered at public auction at the low low estimated price of $7-$9 million (but generously offered to natural history museums before the sale for $15 million).

If the good working relationship envisioned by Larson and Russell involves North American museums spending on one specimen the same amount that could generously fund a multi-year field project, a collections renovation, several student scholarships, or educational initiatives, that vision is unrealistic.

I am still anxiously waiting for a reply on this issue to be made by our European vertebrate paleontology colleagues. As Larson and Russell point out, some governments purchase fossils directly from collectors. While no dollar values are provided, I speculate that the European commercial fossil dealers are not pricing the fossils they sell so high that academic institutions cannot afford this practice.

If commercial paleontology is to have a positive future in North America, there cannot be a "the sky's the limit" mentality to fossil sales. Either attitudes towards the buying and selling of our fossil heritage will have to change, or there will have to be regulated price caps on commercial fossil heritage items. Those items will have to be independently assessed prior to sale for their scientific value. We cannot rely on the dewy-eyed sentiment of "those were the good ol' days" to frame the conversation on the conservation of our fossil heritage.

2. Ad Hominem Strikes Again.

This particular line from Larson and Russell stood out:

"Shimada et al. (2014) stated: “We therefore consider the battle against heightened commercialization of fossils to be the greatest challenge to paleontology of the 21st century.” We believe, on the other hand, that the demonization and marginalization of a specific portion of the paleontological community is the result of misunderstanding, misplaced entitlement and simple intolerance."

Ah, welcome home, Ad Hominem attacks! You must have been homesick for this debate to show up again so soon, but I can honestly say that we did not miss you at all.

Misunderstanding is fine. Misunderstandings happen due to miscommunication, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster knows there has been no end of miscommunication in this debate. However, Larson and Russell attempt to deflect criticism towards commercialism in paleontology by saying the critics are entitled and intolerant. In essence, that commercialized paleontology is being unfairly picked on.

Newflash: science is ALL about the criticism. Science is critical of everything. Science does not wear rose-colored glasses and ignore issues. Scientists spend their entire lives having their work critiqued. Criticism is not the same as "being demonized." When I get a paper back from review, the reviewer was not intolerant and entitled, and my paper was not demonized. All that happens with criticism is that flaws are brought to our attention. Pretending those flaws do not exist, and trying paint criticism of those flaws a personal attack only serves to deflect the path of the constructive dialog that PE is trying to encourage. There are problems. How do we fix them?

3. Stop Lumping Private/Avocational Collectors with Commercial Paleontology.

This happens in every discussion I have seen regarding the flaws with the current way in which commercial paleontology is conducted in North America. Someone inevitably says that those entitled and intolerant academics are trying to kill hobbyist or avocational paleontology.

The issue with private fossil ownership in terms of owning a scientifically valuable specimen that is going to be researched is one of archival continuity. I'm going to pull this directly from one of my previous post on commercialism and private ownership in vertebrate paleontology:

"'What are the issues with scientifically important specimens being in a private collection?'
When you are a museum with a public-trust fossil archive, you are in essence making a pledge that you will do everything in your power to ensure that the fossils under your care will remain in the public trust. Public trust means that anyone who wants to do serious research on these fossils will be able to find those fossils 10, 100, even 1000 years from now. A private person isn’t likely to be around 100 years from now. There is no guarantee their descendants will be as interested in fossils as were Gramps or Gramma. There is no guarantee these fossils will be donated to a museum after the passing (or passing interest) of the initial purchaser. This is one way in which fossils are “lost to science” when they are privately purchased. It’s too easy to lose track of privately purchased fossils because there is no accountability for their whereabouts. There is no tracking system for scientifically important fossils outside of a museum setting."

This, in my opinion, is an easy fix, but it will require new regulations and resources. Create a paper trail for avocational collectors using existing natural history museums. Create a Citizen Repository Network.  This is a system that I one day hope to implement for our natural history repository. It was inspired by the Qualicum Beach Historical and Museum Society paleontology collections created and managed by Graham Beard, one of the shining examples in British Columbia of enthusiasm for and the proper management of fossil heritage resources. I once told our local paper that if everyone had the same mentality towards fossils as Graham, there would be no need for fossil protection laws. Another example are the volunteers of my institution. The bulk of our Triassic marine vertebrate collection would not exist were it not for these volunteers, many of them children. In fact, one of our holotypes, Rebellatrix, the fork-tailed coelacanth, would not have been described were it not for a volunteer collector who was 13 at the time she discovered the specimen.

I want to explicitly state that, as an academic paleontologist, I do not in any way confuse avocational collectors with the multi-million dollar price inflation that is displayed during the auction of a high-profile vertebrate fossil. If the issue of archival discontinuity were resolved, citizen archivists could house scientifically important specimens.

Larson and Russell (2014) provides a useful historical perspective on commercial paleontology in North America, and does briefly describe how commercial paleontology is managed in other parts of the world. However, this opinion piece falls into the previously dug pits of misdirected arguments. It does not offer any solutions to the current flaws in the commercial system they wholeheartedly praise. In fact, they do not directly address the issues of archival discontinuity and over the top prices to which vertebrate fossils and their researchers face in the commercial system.

I hope that more opinion pieces continue to be submitted to Palaeontologia Electronica, because a meaningful dialog has not yet been reached, but maybe this is the very start. I hope we'll get there.

Strange Woman

Fossil Commercialism and the Threat to Paleontology - Who Will Accept the Challenge?

I wonder if, in my lifetime, I'll see a resolution to the issue of the commercial fossil trade.

Hello, Dear Readers!

This post is going to be part summary, part rant. This is not the first time I have commented on the commercial fossil trade, and it will likely not be my last. Deep down I still believe there is a magical combination of words that will finally enlighten those who support the commercialization of fossils and they will get it. They will finally get why treating the only record we have of our planet's history like organic Pokemon cards does nothing to promote science education and knowledge. They will finally understand there is more to fossils than their current market (illegal or otherwise) value. I need to believe that people truly want to understand that our irreplaceable heritage is worth protecting.

I'm not the only one who believes this. Please read this thorough commentary published recently in Palaeontologica Electronica:

Shimada, Kenshu, Currie, Philip J., Scott, Eric, and Sumida, Stuart S. 2014. The greatest challenge to 21st century paleontology: When commercialization of fossils threatens the science. Palaeontologia Electronica Vol. 17, Issue 1; 1E: 4 p;palaeo-electronica.org/content/2014/691-great-threat-in-21st-century

The article was shared on the vertpaleo listserver less than 24 hours ago, and already the predictable sniping is underway:

For so many reasons.

Some researchers have brought up useful points, especially those in Europe who have good working relationships with their commercial collectors (I would be very interested to read a detailed commentary from my European colleagues on their experiences with commercial fossil collectors). However, the bulk of the comments follow the theme of the one above. This theme of commentary that is absolutely NOT helpful.

Here's the amusing part. The article was shared by the editor of Palaeontologica Electronic on PaleoNet. In anticipation of the name-calling, pseudoreasoning, and general unprofessional behavior of some of the commercial fossil trade supporters on various public forums, he wrote this (I'll write it out below, as the link doesn't seem to display the entire contents, and this link is difficult on the eyes):

"NOTE: I am not looking for brief "comments" on Shimada et al. Instead, I want detailed and well thought out statements that will contribute to a dialog on these critical topics. Please do not be hesitant to clearly stake out a position. I do, however, reserve the right to reject any contribution that I regard as impolite."

To all those who support the current state of fossil commercialism: here is your opportunity to convince us that the commercial fossil trade is beneficial. Many paleontologists have rationally and logically stated their concerns with the current commercialized system. Present a cohesive argument that details why the benefits of the current commercialized system outweigh the damage to fossil heritage resources.

I'll offer some friendly advice. Avoid the appeals to emotion and tradition. Don't paint yourselves as the downtrodden, demonized victims of the academic elite. No one will take that argument seriously because it offers neither factual content nor practical solutions. Frame your argument in terms of the fossils themselves rather than personal issues. How does the current system of commercialism benefit fossils? What is your evidence? Can you honestly see any problems with the current system, and if so, what are they? What practical changes can you envision that will allow for a greater collaboration between commercialism and conservation (I offer some suggestions here)?

In short: go productive or stay home.

Challenge accepted?

Strange Woman

"Dinos For Dollars" Needs to Change to "Dollars For Dinos."

Hello Dear Readers,

It has been awhile since my last post. I have been mentally ruminating over the interesting recent events in the World of Vertebrate Paleontology. For those that have read my previous pieces, you probably know that when I say "interesting" I mean soul-suckingly frustrating. Many people have written about their take on recent events. I've been reading and processing, processing and reading. And thinking. And more thinking. All I can come up with is summarized by the statement "Things fall apart." This is not meant to be a negative statement: things have to fall apart before they are repaired and proofed against future degradations.

First, there was the impending auction of the Montana Dueling Dinosaurs by Bonhams, which failed to sell at auction despite a high bid of $5.5 million because the reserve price was not met. Paleontologists were interviewed (read here, here, here, with excellent quotes from Jack Horner and Hans Dieter-Sues in the last link) and social media buzzed (here, here, and here, for example) about why the sale of such specimens is quite detrimental to the science of paleontology.

Sadly, this is becoming rather old cheese in paleontology as more and more specimens seem to be arriving on the public auction block. What took the paleontology community by surprise was the announcement that the Board of Directors of the San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM, and let’s be clear: this decision had no consultation from the paleontology staff) had deaccessioned a part of their fossil collection collected, prepared, and donated by Charles H. Sternberg (yes, THE Sternberg) and put said fossils up for public auction. Letters were written, official statements were made by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, blog posts were written (the Comments section of Brian Switek's post contains many copies of letters that were sent to the SDNHM Board of Directors), and after much public pressure the announcement was made the day before the November 19 auction that the SDNHM removed the specimens.

The gut reaction when a person hears or reads a paleontologist saying that a private person buying a museum specimen or a scientifically valuable fossil is a problem is to angrily critique the science community for being so damned unreasonable. I’m sure I haven’t heard the last of being called “ivory tower”, “academic snob”, or “elitist.” To save time, here’s a sample list of the ad hominem comments made about paleontologists on social media sites and the dreaded “Comments” section. All these paleontologists have done is critique the system of the commercialization of fossil heritage and state their concerns with private fossil collections.

"Scientists have a creationist-like view with regard to private fossil ownership and the sale of fossils."

"Scientists don’t live in the 'real world' or are 'blind' to how the 'world works.'"

"Scientists are academic snobs/elitist."

"Scientists want all the fossils for themselves (greedy)."

"Scientists keep other scientists from studying museum fossils, so they should just be ignored." (that logical fallacy is the No True Scotsman, condemning a person's stance because the person or their establishment isn't "perfect.")

"Scientists would rather let fossils rot in the ground than let a private person collect them."
(I have to interject on this comment. Sample size matters in paleontology. It's not enough to qualify: we have to quantify, and to quantify we need multiples of the same type of fossil. The sad fact is that we don't often have the resources to go after multiples. Trust me, anytime you hear someone say "We don't need another hadrosaur," you're hearing a severely underfunded scientist lying to themselves. N=3000 kicks the ass of N=30.)

"Scientists have a “holier-than-thou” attitude."

"Scientists are arrogant," and, the one that has become the battle-cry as of late,

"Scientists are 'demonizing' commercial and private fossil dealers."

These reactionary statements hurt paleontology because they are made, as are most reactionary statements, without considering all the information. They are also statements that gain traction within public opinion because they are dramatic and are repeated ad nauseam (again, as are most reactionary statements.) In fact, if you feel the need to defend one position or the other with any sort of ad hominem attack, I'm treating your rebuttal as one from an angry child who cannot get its own way and calls everyone a doody-head. All the above ad hominem attacks are the “grown-up” version of doody-head. Go constructive or go home.

I have made it no secret my opinions on the commercial fossil trade and I have no problem answering questions about the scientific ethics. Here are some of the questions that have been asked that are actually constructive. [Note: these are questions within the US and Canada framework. Other countries have their own laws and issues regarding fossil trade.]

"Why is selling fossils considered so destructive?"
If a potentially scientifically important fossil is discovered on private land, there is no consistently applicable framework in place for the evaluation of said fossil by a specialist to determine its scientific value. All fossils found on private land, regardless of their scientific value, have an equal opportunity of appearing in the auction house. The only statements made to the public regarding the scientific worth of the fossils are made by people directly connected with the sale: auction house employees, the private sellers, and commercial sellers. There is no third party evaluator involved to either confirm or deny the claims. Hype drives up the interest, and the level of interest drives up the price. This leads in to the questions below.

"Why don't museums just purchase the fossils if they are so concerned about losing them?"
Natural history museums, as Hans Dieter-Sues so succinctly stated in one of the interviews, don't have high-end benefactor backing as do art museums. Museums aren't just struggling to be able to purchase high-end fossils: they are struggling to keep the staff and research programs they currently have. Museum research and archive programs are often an easy target for purse-tightening schemes because most of the museum-visiting public (and oftentimes the Boards of Directors of museums) forget that without a robust research and archives program, there is no base for making a kick-ass public-wowing display. Even if museums wanted to purchase a several million dollar fossil from auction, they couldn't afford to without laying off the staff they would need to research it. The only groups able to afford these fossils are wealthy individuals and businesses. In other words, the private collectors.

Ethically, many museums do not want to contribute to the high prices and hype that surround a legal fossil auction because it helps to sustain said hype and prices, and also encourages the illegal fossil trade. The Case of the Smuggled Tarbosaurus is one example of this "dinos for dollars" mentality. Regardless of the motives behind the legal sale of fossils, "dinos for dollars" encourages poaching, plain and simple. Also, I don't see how anyone can ethically claim they own a fossil. I can't think of a better way to voice my opinion on the subject than what I recently wrote on a Facebook post (edited for clarity):

"Every stakeholder in this discussion has a loud voice: landowners, commercial people, fossil purchasers, industries, and they have their laws and rights on which to rely. The groups that have no voices are the fossils themselves and the people who are not even born yet for whom we hold these fossils in trust. I take my position as a collections manager very seriously. These are not MY fossils. I don't sleep on a horde of them like Smaug. I don't view them as decorative or art pieces. They are not mere curiosities to be traded like so many Pokemon cards. They are not rare trophies to flaunt. They are The Dead, and deserve as much reverence and respect as any other Dead. I merely guard and stand watch until it is my time to pass on the torch, and hope that I can tell the story of The Dead to the best of my abilities before I join them. Sounds hokey? That's how I feel, and I feel it unapologetically."

“What are the issues with scientifically important specimens being in a private collection?” 
When you are a museum with a public-trust fossil archive, you are in essence making a pledge that you will do everything in your power to ensure that the fossils under your care will remain in the public trust. Public trust means that anyone who wants to do serious research on these fossils will be able to find those fossils 10, 100, even 1000 years from now. A private person isn’t likely to be around 100 years from now. There is no guarantee their descendants will be as interested in fossils as were Gramps or Gramma. There is no guarantee these fossils will be donated to a museum after the passing (or passing interest) of the initial purchaser. This is one way in which fossils are “lost to science” when they are privately purchased. It’s too easy to lose track of privately purchased fossils because there is no accountability for their whereabouts. There is no tracking system for scientifically important fossils outside of a museum setting.

“Once a fossil has been researched and all the information is collected, is it OK to sell it then?” 
It is even more important that researched fossils remain in the public trust. For example, I might take all the data I can on a fossil footprint, but I know I am limited by the technology and scientific advances of our time. There are going to be tests, measurements, and scans not yet developed that I can’t even imagine that paleontologists will be able to do 10, 100, 1000 years from now. If those future scientists read my research and want to take a fresh look at that footprint, the only guarantee they will have of seeing the footprint is if it is in a museum. A museum’s job is to give scientists access to specimens. However, if that footprint is part of a private collection, that person has no obligation whatsoever to give scientists access to the footprint. This is another way in which fossils are lost to science: paleontologists know where these fossils are, but can never be guaranteed that they will see them. This is why most scientific journals that publish paleontology papers demand that any specimens that are part of the paper have to be archived in a museum. This is how we maintain the scientific paper trail.

"How can we improve the situation?"
I wish I knew. Unfortunately, stating the above to educate the general public and the fossil enthusiast alike and try to work towards a new system gets paleontologists called names by people who support commercialization of natural heritage. This happened when Dr. Thomas Carr proposed a suggestion. While I don't know the answer, or can even hazard a guess as to what form the eventual solution will take, I have suggestions. The suggestions I offer below will likely get me called names, but since I already stated The Rule that I am hereon dismissing arguments that contain name-calling of any kind, I offer the following suggestions.

1. Develop a culture of heritage consciousness with fossils (time and energy involved.)

There are public awareness campaigns to discourage the trade of products that encourage poaching. There are public awareness campaigns to discourage unsustainable practices, such as shark-finning. I see no reason why a similar campaign cannot be developed for natural heritage consciousness. There are so many positive ways in which a person can both support sustained natural heritage conservation and be directly involved with fossils. For example, if you enjoy the aesthetic beauty of fossils (let's admit it, fossils are beautiful), there are people who create museum-quality paleontology art and detailed replicas.

We can change the way that people think about fossils. Rather than thinking fossils are a financial asset (dinos for dollars), we (as a culture) should be thinking that that fossils need our help (dollars for dinos). Instead of spending several million dollars on one purchase, wealthy individuals could be convinced that they would see more bang for their buck by becoming benefactors of fossil-related research programs at museums. An "Advocacy for Benefactor Science" group would put those who enjoy certain fossil groups in touch with museums and academic programs that focus on telling the stories of those particular fossils. Like tyrannosaurs? There's a Research Interest Group for that. The investments from these benefactors would train future scientists, help paleontologists do more outreach work to the public about the fossil group of choice, and would fund the basic research needed to create show-stopping displays. Scholarships can be created for scientists. All of this (and more) would be with "Thanks to BENEFACTOR NAME HERE." This is about legacy building. Fossils have left their mark in time and space. Supporting science is one way in which a single person can make a positive difference and leave their mark.

2. Establish rules for private fossil collections (additional museum resources involved.)

The greatest issue I have with scientifically valuable fossils being held in a private collection is one of archival continuity (explained above.) This is not meant to be a personal insult to private fossil collectors, but properly caring for both the fossils themselves and their associated data takes training. A lot of training. Who better to provide this training than the museums themselves?

I have mentioned this many times to many colleagues, but one system I want to implement at my current institution (once I have the mythical "sustained resources") is the Citizen Archives Program. Fossil enthusiasts would apply to the institution for an archival permit as Citizen Archivers. The Citizen Archiver would manage, for all intents and purposes, an off-site collections facility for the home institution. They would be instructed on how to collect and store both the fossils and the associated data. Copies of this archival data would be stored at the home institution, and yearly fossil audits would take place to ensure compliance with agreed upon standards, and these standards would be the same ones under which a natural history museum operates (access to researchers, no engaging in commercial activities with fossils, etc.) Once the Citizen Archiver retires or passes away, the care of the fossils would be transferred to the home institution or to a relative who agrees to all the conditions as did their predecessor. Under this system a paper trail is established as the fossils are technically archived at a public trust institution, and serious fossil enthusiasts can be directly involved with fossils. The potential would then exist for specimens cared for by a Citizen Archiver to be published. The Citizen Archiver can collect specimens that scientists do not have the resources to collect. Citizen Archivers could be individuals, elementary and high schools, companies...as long as the permit system was followed and the fossils were accounted for, anyone could be a Citizen Archiver.

3. All fossils going for sale must be evaluated by a third-party specialist (laws involved.)

If the commercial fossil trade is going to continue in it's current form, there needs to be a way to ensure that scientifically valuable fossils, even those from private lands, are evaluated by a third-party specialist of that particular fossil prior to sale. If the fossil is deemed novel or unique to science, local natural history museums would be given right of first refusal. The fossils would not necessarily have to be given away, but there would be a set price at which the fossil would be acquired. Off the top of my head I would suggest cost recovery plus a percentage of the total cost recovery as payment for the private landowners. No, it is not the several million dollar swimming pool full of money that people would likely want and receive from a public auction, but it both compensates the land owner and keeps the price of the fossil within an acceptable range for natural history museums, as well as decreases the trend of fossils selling at ever-increasing prices.

Are these suggestions perfect? Likely not, but if I'm going to err I want to err on the side of the long-term care and conservation of our fossil heritage. We only get one shot at preserving our fossil heritage for future generations. We owe The Dead that level of respect.

Strange Woman out.

(Commercial) Fossil Fuel

Once again I feel as though I can't take my eyes off the Internet for a second. Tuesday morning (July 30) is the first time in 24 days that I have had to thoroughly check the fossil-related news since being out in the field and being immersed in the Tumbler Ridge Aspiring Geopark Symposium.

What headlines do I see on scrolling through the news? "Clashing Titans for Sale: Dinosaur Skeletons Headed to Auction, Not Museum." appeared in the New York Times. Cue the Everlasting Head-desk.

Many dinophiles have heard of "The Fighting Dinosaurs." Discovered in 1971 by the Polish-Mongolian Palaeontological Expedition, this evocative specimen depicts mortal combat between the Mongolian dinosaurs Velociraptor and Protoceratops, and was part of a past exhibition of the American Museum of Natural History.

Besides the visual impact, fossils such as these have great scientific importance. Much of the behavior we of dinosaurs (and other extinct animals) we infer from very detailed studies of their anatomy. With modelling technology becoming more accessible, new hypotheses on dinosaur movement and behavior are being presented and tested in the literature. [Warning: Shameless ichnology plug! One of the reasons I enjoy dinosaur ichnology is because dinosaur tracks and trackways are preserved behavior: if you want to know how an animal moves and places its limbs, you cannot ignore ichnology.] Specimens such as the Fighting Dinosaurs have the potential to show us the end results of an interaction between predator and prey, and these specimens are not common.

No other specimen has come as close as the Fighting Dinosaurs to preserving the aftermath of dual death scene. A new specimen is on the paleontological radar, and, like the recently completed Tarbosaurus case (shameless link to my previous posts here and here, which also contain several links to the media reporting on the case), it is garnering attention for all the wrong reasons.

Here is the website for the specimen now known as the Dueling Dinosaurs, which contains the background of the discovery (unfortunately none of the links to the supporting documents work at the time of this posting), and some of the speculation surrounding the specimen. The specimen was discovered on private land in deposits of the Hell Creek Formation of Tyrannosaurus rex and Triceratops horridus fame. Most of the media on this story emphasizes the purported scientific importance of the specimen. All of the media reports on the fate of the specimen: it is destined for auction at Bonhams New York on November 19, and the estimated price tag is between $7-$9 million USD.

Unlike the Tarbosaurus case, there is no last-minute restraining order or court ruling that will return the specimen to the public trust. Because the specimen was discovered on private land, it is perfectly legal in the United States for landowners to sell vertebrate fossils found on their private land. [Note: Public lands are controlled by the Bureau of Land Management.] Even a specimen of Archaeopteryx caught in the act of giving live birth to a Tyrannosaurus is not be immune to being offered for sale, or from subsequently being purchased by someone with a Bag of Holding as a pocketbook.

There are two points in this particular case that raise my hackles. First, there is a great deal of speculation (a.k.a. hype) on the supposed importance of the specimen, but there is absolutely no scientific documentation to support these claims. None of the links to the PDFs lead anywhere (and as of 2pm on 05-08-13 the site is currently offline), so there is no way for a curious researcher to examine what has been collected or noted to date. A brief look at the affiliations of those making the grand statements of significance shows us that they are associated in some way with the discovery, preparation, and marketing (for lack of a better term) of the fossil. To date, there are no peer-reviewed scientific publications on the specimens. Thomas Carr, a paleontologist who does extensive work in the Hell Creek Formation, states in his interview (follow the link) that there likely will not be any scientific study on the specimen, depending on the final purchaser.
Why not? If the ceratopsian preserved in the "Dueling Dinosaurs" specimen block is indeed a new horned dinosaur, it will need a full diagnostic work-up and publication (and no, someone stating in a news article or auction house website that it is a new species does not constitute peer-review.) If the speculations are correct, it would need to be described as a type specimen. Type specimens need to be archived in a public institution (e.g. museum, university) that a) guarantees access to any researcher who wants to study the specimen and b) is committed to storing the specimen in perpetuity. I can't stress enough the importance of this last statement. If I paint "Tuxedo Cat Bathing Her Nethers During My Last Dinner Party", that piece of work may change ownership many times during its existence. It could be damaged, stolen, or lost (likely without mourning from the art community in the case of the above mentioned work).

Type materials need stability and permanence. If I designate a new type of footprint, it is my responsibility as a researcher to choose a repository that is committed to archiving that specimen for the long haul. Ideally, 100 years from now a researcher should be able to easily locate the repository for that specimen. There is absolutely no guaranteed stability to commercially purchased/privately owned fossils. What happens if the owner dies, and the specimen is not willed to a public institution, or their progeny cares not for fossils? What if it is sold and its location becomes unknown? What if it is stolen? Will it be stored responsibly? Also, how was the specimen collected? What data, if any, were documented? What will happen to the data and associated specimens encountered during the excavation of the specimen?

Second, while no laws are being broken, I have huge ethical reservations about all that has transpired in this specimen going to auction. My stance is this: fossils are a part of the history of each and every one of us. They arose, flourished, and fell long before the creatures who would inevitably develop the distinctions between private and public land evolved. No one person has the ethical right to profit from the sale of my heritage, your heritage. We all share this heritage because it is the common heritage of our planet.

"Hold on, Strange Woman!" I hear some of you exclaiming, "How is a private person owning a fossil any different from a museum owning a fossil?"

Good question. Natural history museums hold fossil specimens in trust for the people, and are staffed with people who have been trained in the art and science of fossil conservation. I can only speak for myself, but I would not have the hubris to claim that I own a single fossil within the walls of my institution. My only claim is one of responsibility. I am responsible for the long-term care of each specimen and all the data that are associated with it. I am responsible for making these specimens available for research. I am responsible for ensuring that the research done on each specimen is done with care and diligence. I am responsible for developing the interpretive material that goes out on display for the public to see. I do not (for hyperbolic example) take the fossils under my care home and stroke them covetously in the flickering candlelight. They are neither curiosities nor porcelain collectibles. They are our past.

"Hold on again, Strange Woman!" some may be puzzling, "why doesn't a natural history museum just buy the fossil? Wouldn't that be the responsible thing to do if researchers feel so strongly about the specimen going to auction?"

Ah, if only! Back in the early days of the Bone Wars and the first exploration of places such as Dinosaur Provincial Park, museums contracted commercial fossil collectors to acquire specimens for their museums. Museums are one of the many scientific institutions that are feeling the vice-grip of budget cuts, and many are struggling to retain their own academic staff and research/collecting programs, never mind finding funds to purchase specimens. The private owners have reportedly accrued over $250,000 USD in costs related to the removal of the specimen, yet the specimen has been offered to museums for a mere $15 million.

This specimen is not being sold for cost recovery. It was not offered to well-known museums at what could be considered a donation price. This is turning fossils into profit, plain and simple. And, someone will inevitably purchase the specimen, ensuring that the cycle of collecting fossils solely for profit continues.

To those who have pockets deep enough to consider dropping $6 - $9 million on a single specimen, I truly believe there are more effective ways to leave lasting impressions on society that are fossil related. Natural history museums and research programs are struggling. These very museums create the excellent fossil displays that inspire young and old alike. They inspire the next generation of paleontologists and fossil enthusiasts. There are countless imaginative ways in which to redirect the funds that go to the purchase of fossils, including:

- renovating and upgrading a public display gallery,
- upgrading and expanding a fossil repository,
- funding a chair in paleontology research,
- funding a research program,
- funding a paleontological expedition, the results of which would be scientifically studied and publicly displayed,

and many others.

I see great potential for benefactor sciences. The benefactor makes an ethical and long-lasting contribution to paleontology - paleontology that might not otherwise be done without such support. The future stability of the museum is strengthened, as well as their ability to continue with high-quality scientific investigations and public outreach. Most important, the fossils collected as a result of benefactor science are spared the fate of the fickle commercial market. This is win-win-win.

What are your thoughts on encouraging benefactor science? Any ideas?

Until next time,

Strange Woman.

Tarbosaurus and Logical Fallacies: the "debate" continues

I always hope that, while in the field and in relative solitude from humanity, that people in general will find a way to not be greedy selfish Homo sapiens and gain a better appreciation for the planet's natural and cultural heritage. I always make the mistake of checking the news on my reentry into society, and my vain hopes are dashed to pieces on the rocky shores of pseudoreasoning and small-mindedness.

This batch of musings is a follow-up piece to my previous post on the auction of the skeleton of Tarbosaurus by fossil dealer Eric Prokopi through Heritage Auctions. Despite protest from the paleontology community and from the government of Mongolia, whose fossil heritage often falls victim to fossil poachers, the auction proceeded. There are many reasons why this auction should have been halted. One, there is strong evidence that the specimen was illegally imported into the United States, as described by the blog "Dinosaur Tracking." Second, the government of Mongolia has not approved the removal of rare fossils such as Tarbosaurus for many decades, making this an illegal removal. The fossil, on examination by paleontologists with years of experience working with Mongolian fossils, was indeed found to be from Mongolia. Third, and for me and likely many other vertebrate paleontologists, fossils that are auctioned are in danger of being lost to the scientific and educational community, as they are often purchased by wealthy private individuals. As I wrote about in my previous post, no one person has the right to sell a piece of the entire world's heritage. Fossils simultaneously belong to everyone and no one.

Unfortunately for this piece of Mongolia's vertebrate paleontological heritage, the legal lunacy has only just begun. The Florida fossil dealer has lawyered up and is seeking to have the federal seizure of the specimen of Tarbosaurus dismissed. Take a moment and read this news article from NBCNews regarding the legal reasoning of Mr. Prokopi's legal team.

Finished? Did any part of the reasoning of the legal team strike you as a bit off or odd? If it did, congratulations! You have a sensitive Logical Fallacy Detector! Chances are you already have a link to this wonderful reference poster.

Let's go through the reported reasoning of Mr. Prokopi's legal team. Now, I am aware that, sometimes, the media misquotes or misreports on stories, so it is possible that these reported statements are gross oversimplifications. For the lawyers' sakes I hope this is the case, because a competent legal opponent will vaporize them in a puff of logic.

First, the legal team claims there is no conclusive proof the specimen in question actually came from Mongolia. Welcome to the logical fallacy of "Burden of Proof", which is the attempt to shift the burden of proving the specimen came from Mongolia to the exclusion of other localities. Sorry guys, but if you are going to claim that a fossil could have come from anywhere, let us hope you are not attempting this with Tarbosaurus. To date, Tarbosaurus has not been reported from anywhere other than Mongolia. Not only that, but the preservation type of the fossil was indicative to the paleontologists conducting the examination of a Mongolian origin. Also, they claim that there is no evidence that the specimen was acquired from Mongolia around a decade ago. Again, they really shouldn't try to dispute claims that are already well supported, such as the origin of the fossil. They could attempt to accuse the paleontologists of the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority", but, in the case of gathering information on the origin and identity of a fossil, I am going to trust the training of a paleontologist over the training of a lawyer. They have lost this argument before it has even started.

Second, and this is my personal favorite, is the lawyers are claiming Mongolia has no authority to say that Mongolian fossils can be sold because of an unsourced photo showing a tooth in a gift shop. Here's the quote from the NBCNews article:

"Tompa and McCullough [Prokopi's lawyers] released a photo showing what appears to be a fossilized dinosaur tooth. This photo, they said, undercuts the Mongolian claim on the dinosaur because it shows a fossil from the same species of dinosaur, a Tarbosaurus bataar, on sale for tourists in a Mongolian-run museum. (Mongolian law does not allow private ownership of its fossils, so they cannot be sold legally within the country.)

"If it is illegal to sell fossils in Mongolia, then why are fossils being sold in the Natural History Museum? We plan to introduce the photograph, along with other evidence, as this case goes forward," McCullough told LiveScience in an email." 

There are so many fallacies at work here I don't know where to begin. Since I have to begin somewhere, let's go with the fallacy duo of "No True Scotsman" and "Ad Hominem." The first fallacy attacks the purity of the argument of the Mongolian government, essentially saying that the Mongolian government cannot claim to hold anyone else to a standard they are not themselves supporting. The "Ad Hominem" fallacy joins in by attacking the character of the Mongolian government in their treatment of their own fossil heritage. 

First, there is no evidence as of yet that the photo in question came from a museum in Mongolia, as stated by the NBCNews article:

"However, as of yet, they have not revealed who took the photo or provided a sworn statement verifying what it shows and other details that would allow the photo to be entered as evidence in the case."

By using this photo as "evidence" the lawyers are utilizing the ever-popular "Anecdote," where an isolated incident is used to disprove a case with a great deal of documented supporting evidence. For a fourth fallacy, the legal team also dips their toes oh-so-subtly into the pool of the "Bandwagon", which attempts to support one action because "everyone else is doing it." How many times as kids did you hear your mother say "If everyone jumped off a bridge/pierced their eyelids/drank gasoline/played chicken with cars on the highway, would you?" As annoying and frustrating as it was to listen to back then, our parents were trying, in their own way, to teach us to avoid this particular logical fallacy. Just because one, two, or many places in Mongolia may or may not sell fossils, that does not make it legally correct to do so.

Finally, the legal team makes the point of saying it is not in the US's jurisdiction to enforce the export laws of other countries:

"McCullough maintained that the recent Mongolian seizures of fossils were not sufficient evidence to allow the United States to seize the dinosaur and give it to Mongolia. The issue is whether or not Mongolia has an ownership interest in the fossils, which it does not, he said. Mongolia may seek to stop the export of fossils, but the United States does not enforce other countries' export laws without a treaty, which in this case does not exist, he said."

This, in my mind, is the only valid-sounding point the legal team has made publicly. However, this is not a case of enforcing another country's export laws, but returning another person's/country's stolen property. In an earlier article, the lawyers also claim there is a difference between the original specimen and the finished prepared "display piece." Simple reasoning would show that if you remove the original specimen from the "display piece", there is nothing but some glue, a bit of reconstruction, and support beams left behind. The original specimen IS the only item under dispute. 

In the same article, the fossil dealer also tries out the old fallacy of "Appeal to Emotion" by claiming he's "just a guy in Gainesville, Florida, trying to support [his] family, not some international bone smuggler". This is one of the most pathetic ways to gain support this person could use. The same claim could be made by anyone attempting to make a living by engaging in legally/ethically questionable activities. The specimen was removed from Mongolia without the knowledge or permission of the Mongolian government. The Mongolian government wants their country's fossil back, regardless of how much time/money/effort the dealer put in to the preparation of the fossil. If you put time and money into an activity that is discovered to be illegal, or at best legally and ethically dodgy, you lose out on that time and money. Simple.

There is one large benefit to this case going to trial, and that is public awareness. The more information is publicly presented on the plight of Mongolia's fossil heritage at the hands of thieves, the ethical considerations of fossil "ownership" and sale, the better off the heritage, scientific, and educational world is going to be. Through all this discussion and debate perhaps we, as a fossil enthused society, will come across alternative ways to support our love of our planet's past without having to do it at the expense of the past. 

If you love fossils and have the means to make million dollar purchases, don't just simply buy fossils. You might be inadvertently supporting a legally and ethically unsound activity. Instead, support the institutions and people that bring these fossils to the public light. Fund a research chair in paleontology. Help upgrade a wing or collections facility in your local museum. There are many creative ways to be directly and positively involved in paleontology. 

Strange Woman

Tarbosaurus Musings - Thoughts on purchasing fossils

I remember many of the daydreams I had about becoming a paleontologist when I was a child. Their general theme was of me wandering across barren landscapes for days on end, sometimes with a trusty packhorse - depending on how young I was, it may have been a magical talking horse, but let's not dwell on that part - and finally stumbling across that complete skeleton of Tyrannosaurus rex at the last possible moment. Not once in my imaginings did lawyers, restraining orders, and the illegal fossil trade cross my mind.

Legal battles involving fossil custodianship are part of the harsh, time-consuming reality for paleontologists. The most recent incident to highlight this issue is that of the auction of a skeleton of Tarbosaurus bataar (lot 49315) in New York City a month ago by Heritage Auctions. For a summary of the situation, check out Dinosaur Tracking on the Smithsonian.com page. Also, check out the blog Pseudoplocephalus for a breakdown of why Tarbosaurus bataar is not Tyrannosaurus rex.

For my summary, here it is. Heritage Auctions and the seller originally claimed the fossil was both legally collected and legally imported into the United States. Mongolia's President Elbegdori Tsakhia and the Mongolian government hired a US legal team and claimed that, if the specimen was one of Tarbosaurus, they are known only from Mongolia. Therefore, it was illegally removed from Mongolia, and should be removed from the auction process and returned to its rightful country. Finalizing the sale of the specimen was halted through restraining order. The specimen was examined to determine its origin, and it was indeed a specimen of Tarbosaurus and had originated from Mongolia. This means the specimen was collected without the legal permission or knowledge of the Mongolian government. To date, the Manhattan US Attorney has filed papers requesting forfeiture and the seizure of the Mongolian Tarbosaurus specimen, and the specimen is now in custody. 

Sadly, the theft, looting, and illegal sale of Mongolia’s natural heritage occurs on a regular basis, according to Dr. Philip Currie in his recent article in New Scientist. The commercial dealing of fossils, especially vertebrate fossils, is a contentious subject among some paleontologists. The Code of Ethics for the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology is very clear on the subject of how professional paleontologists (who are members) should treat the commercial trade of vertebrate fossils: the only sale of a fossil that should be supported is that which brings a vertebrate fossil within the public trust (to a museum, university, or research center). This is very different than someone purchasing a dinosaur skull so they can have an interesting (and expensive) conversation piece in their private residence.

The Shaman's view? I am not going to discuss here the pros and cons of commercial fossil operations (perhaps that will be a subject for a later post), but I personally find the sale of vertebrate fossil specimens by individuals/companies to other individuals repellent and unethical. Unless fossil specimens for sale are directly destined for museums, universities, or any other institution that holds in trust the history of the planet, no one individual has the moral or ethical grounds to either sell or buy a fossil.

As aesthetically beautiful as fossils are, fossils are not art. Fossils were not created by any one person's hand. Fossils are not the intellectual property of any one person or group of people. The rules that apply to the art or antique world do not apply to fossils any more than they apply to a migratory bird. The care of that bird, and fossils, is the responsibility of everyone. Both the bird and fossils are the property of no one. They are citizens of the world.

Sociopolitical boundaries were not laid out with fossils in mind, and it is just chance that fossils lay within the sociopolitical boundaries that they do. Where they do occur, it is up the municipality, region, province, country, and international laws to protect the right of these fossils to remain citizens of the world, and every nation has their own success and failures in terms of fossil stewardship. Laws and public education are the only tools available with which to protect fossils from selfish acts of profiteering. I believe that one of our duties as paleontologists is to give voice to the voiceless fossils, like the Lorax speaking for the defenseless trees. Like the Lorax, it sometimes feels as though we are losing the battle for right against the might of greed and ego. I applaud the efforts of the Mongolian government in not only taking their responsibility as fossil stewards seriously, but also for bringing this issue to light in the most public way possible: using the US legal system to interfere with large amounts of money changing hands for goods and services obtained through less than honest means.

I cannot see how personally owning a fossil is about anything more than a matter of ego. As Gatekeeper of a collections facility, I take a pride in the stewardship of the collection that I manage. The responsibility of its current and future care falls on my shoulders. However, I cannot state this next point strongly enough: I, and no one who works, manages, or funds the facility, owns the fossils within its walls. We are merely caretakers, caring for the shrine to our history and keeping scientific vigil until passing the responsibility to the next caretaker.

I admit that I purchased a theropod tooth from a rock shop. I was in elementary school and on a road trip to Drumheller, Alberta with my parents.  

A photo of my shame, now donated to our institution's Educational Program.

My thought processes regarding the purchase were simple. I saw it, I liked what I saw, I could afford it, so I wanted it for my own. I was quite Gollum-esque about my purchase: I'm sure I held it and stroked it as though it were the One Ring for the rest of the trip. Hindsight has offered me this other deeper observation on my ego: was I subconsciously thinking that this was as close as I was going to get to my dreams of being an actual paleontologist for decades? Perhaps I wanted a tangible link to the future I hoped to have.

I cannot speak for the motives behind the Fabulously Rich who are willing to pay six or seven figures for rare fossils. Perhaps their thought processes are no different than those of the six-year old Shaman: it's cool and they want it. Perhaps they do it simply because they can. There are a myriad of ways to fan the flames of ego, and having fossils available as high-priced goods attracts the attention of large wallets.  It could also be that they too want a tangible link to a childhood dream of roaming the desert in search for historical treasure. Are they unaware of the rampant looting and theft that it takes to get fossils, such as those of Tarbosaurus, to auction? Is this a way they feel they can contribute to paleontology and their love of history? And, if they do know about the damage done by the illegal fossil trade, do they care?

If their motives are altruistic, there are many ways in which the wealthy can make a positive, legal, and ethically sound impact in paleontology that will outlast that of purchasing a single fossil. For example, billionare David Koch donated a large sum to the Smithsonian Museum because is a longtime fan of their dinosaur hall. Other avenues open to philanthropy include establishing research chairs and operational endowments, funding legal excavations of a dinosaur skeletons through the museum of choice, and providing capital funds to modernize fossil preparation and collections facilities. 

These are the contributions that not only go down in history, but are above reproach legally and morally. Sometimes these are the contributions that save small research programs (or large programs that have recently faced cutbacks) from going extinct. I hope the Tarbosaurus incident will encourage those that would privately purchase fossils to reconsider how they want to contribute to paleontology. I hope that one day all the time, energy, and funds used to counteract the negative impact of the illegal fossil trade will be used to further the care and discovery of our planet's natural heritage.