[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Minotaurasaurus controversy

It is terrible about the provenance of the specimen, because it is scientifically important. But the problem with publishing on a specimen like this is that it will encourage illegal trade in fossils. If we no longer care from where and how our fossils get to us, poaching will become an even bigger problem. A situation like this sets a precedent, implying this kind of behavior is acceptable. Or so it seems to me.

Robin



Quoting "Dan Chure" <danchure@easilink.com>:

There is more to the specimen than its scientific importance. The ethics of collection, whether or not it was collected illegally, is a factor for the journal to consider in making the decision as to whether or not to accept it. What if a specimen was stolen from a museum? Should that not factor into the issue of publishing on it?

Dan

Dann Pigdon wrote: 
Quoting Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>:


http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090202/full/news.2009.60.html?s=news_rss


Paper sparks fossil fury
------------------------

Palaeontologists criticize publication of specimen with questionable origin.

Rex Dalton

Palaeontologists are criticizing a new article on an armoured dinosaur fossil
because the 80-million-year-old specimen may have been taken illegally from
the Gobi Desert. The prominent California neuroscientist who purchased the
fossil five years ago says he will send it back, to China or Mongolia, if
someone can demonstrate that laws were indeed broken.


I don't understand the objection to publishing the description. The legality of the specimen's ownership should have no bearing on it's scientific importance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.17/1931 - Release Date: 2/2/2009 7:21 PM