Re: Minotaurasaurus controversy

[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
>
>