|
Friends,
I think it valuable to communications
that both articles and the readers reactions be widely available. Storrs Olson
wrote several days ago an open letter to Peter Raven in his role as chair of the
Committee on research. Olson addressed several issues concerning the
"Feathers for T. rex" article in the November issue. The letter was
considered open and was widely circulated. Subsequently it was posed on more
than one web site along with a selection of replies and responses that changed
regularly.
There are some issue here that have not
been mentioned or discussed adequately that would would like to bring to the
attention of readers of this list. First, this is not an argument primarily
about the origins of birds. Although this issue has been used by various
correspondents to discount Olson's remarks, there is more. Admittedly, Olson's
comments regarding the biases of various journals may be strong, and have
solicited replies where necessary..This argument will not be resolved
quickly.
I would like to point out that National
Geographic Magazine is indeed a peer reviewed journal. It is also a publication
of a society that want to present information to the public, supports research,
and has its own agenda as a for-profit enterprise. The article by Senior Editor
Chris Sloan was indeed sent to at least 4 outside reviewers who were asked to
comment on the manuscript and make suggestions for its improvement. This was
done with the reviews knowledge that some of the material, particularly the art
work was privileged. At least 2 of these individuals responded with open letter
to Raven. The more difficult aspect to understand is that the author and
the editor are both NG employees. Decisions on what is published rests with the
editor. Much of the test, figure legends, and even the title were revised based
on the reviewers comments.NGM does indeed have agenda. There is a history of
sensationalism, or excitement, in the tone of there articles. That is part and
parcel of their image.
To my mind, and clearly to Olson, are
the issue regarding the specimen -Archaeoraptor. First, its provenance is
unknown. Czerkas apparently bought it from a dealer, and did not check its
origin. He may or may not have known it was smuggled from China. It is in
private hands, so not deposited in a place where it would be available to
other workers. There has been no technical description published, so not
critical review of the specimen and its description. NGM was aware of all of
this. They were aware of making news out of a technical description. In most
cases, to their credit, the do not release their articles until after or along
with regular publication. Again, these are editorial decisions and the
responsibility for problems rests with the editors. In this specific case, the
author (Sloan) is also a Senior Editor.
NGM is trying to change its image, and
has been for some time. Earlier there was an aborted attempt to develop an more
rigorous publication that included more technical articles written by scientists
that received NG research support. That attempt failed (for too many reasons to
discuss here). Consequently many of the articles in NGM are written in-house by
various 'editors' rather than the scientist primarily involved. At the present
that is the way the Society has decided to run its ship. As I am prone to say,
"when we're on your ship, we'll do it your way". Meanwhile, the
responsibility for these issues regarding publication rests with the
editors.
Perhaps more importantly, the
responsibility for the specimen rests with Czerkas. Does he intend to return it
to China? If so, to whom? How much work has been done on it, and has the
preparation been careful. In a sense this , and every specimen, belongs to the
entire community and it is important that the preparation be careful, the
measurement be complete and the description be creditable. The quote in relation
to Archaeoraptor (p 100) that
"It's a missing link between terrestrail dinosaurs and birds that could
actually fly" gives one pause. I haven't heard arguments like this for a
very long time. A ladder of evolutionary progress with a series of missing links
to be filled in as time goes by seems wonderfully 19th Century and should give
everyone pause.
I'm certain that we have
not heard the end of these issues. The entire community should anticipate the
technical publication with the primary description.
Cheers,
Alan H
Brush
92
High St.
Mystic, CT 06355 brush@uconn.cted.edu
860-572-1717 |