Comments on: Science Held Hostage

By: Gaming the System: Do Promises of Citation Advantage Go Too Far? « The Scholarly Kitchen

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:31:52 +0000

[...] the much derided papers featured in splashy media events like the arsenic-based life article or the paper on the Darwinius fossil would be seen as the most important of recent years. Those researchers able to afford advertising [...]

By: Sunday links | Not Exactly Rocket Science | Discover Magazine

Sunday links | Not Exactly Rocket Science | Discover Magazine — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:42:37 +0000

[...] Loom. Brian produced the first detailed analysis of the paper, while Carl’s kept tabs on the story’s timeline, including the amusing furore over whether Darwinius’s name was actually rightly [...]

By: Setting the Fossil Record Straight « Science Life Blog « University of Chicago Medical Center

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:53:39 +0000

[...] argument for skepticism in science media, where reactions to the Darwinius announcement ranged from suspicion and proper perspective to naive parroting of the press push. Some science writers (including our [...]

By: This Saturday: Skeptics in New York | The Loom | Discover Magazine

This Saturday: Skeptics in New York | The Loom | Discover Magazine — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:46:37 +0000

[...] be talking about science and the news, and the weird new interactions they have these days. Darwinius and other stunning episodes will feature prominently. The whole day looks great. Hope to see some [...]

By: Quando lo show uccide la scienza « Progetto Galileo

Quando lo show uccide la scienza « Progetto Galileo — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:27:21 +0000

[...] Loom [...]

By: Stenfugle » Den lille Idas knogler

Stenfugle » Den lille Idas knogler — Thu, 28 May 2009 08:49:40 +0000

[...] Carl Zimmer har på The Loom dokumenteret at seriøse videnskabsjournalister blev direkte forhindret i at få fat i den videnskabelige artikel eller kontakte uafhængige eksperter, før mediemøllen [...]

By: Steve Marley

Steve Marley — Sun, 24 May 2009 17:47:57 +0000

J Pardo asks,

Q: Why do you think that scientists collect those specimens?

A: Primarily for their personal research and not for the benefit of museums and public education.

Q: Why do you think that museums dedicate huge amounts of money to maintaining facilities to store and preserve those specimens?

A: Most natural history museums don’t have large permanent collections comprised of hundreds of tons of available fossils, and more importantly, fewer still create permanent displays with those specimens to inform the public. Increasingly, science museums are replacing “cabinet displays” with interactive computers, animated characters, IMAX
theaters and larger gift shops. Collections based presentations are considered too static to generate high volume ticket sales,
because many curators believe that they are required to dazzle the public and must “compete” for family entertainment dollars against theme parks and sporting events. I think this is a competition they can’t win, as museum ticket prices spiral higher and higher. Isn’t the over-hyping of science the core issue of this forum?

Frankly, my personal collection of paleozoic fauna is more extensive and better documented than any of the museums in our area, except for the UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology – which is a research facility and closed to the public.
When I’ve inquired about developing a temporary display using these private specimens, at my expense – I’ve been told by museum directors that they have no interest, no space available and they question the marketing value of undertaking such a project. A few times, I’ve often been told that personal ownership of fossils isn’t in the public interest – and that my collection belongs in a museum! OK , where?
I’ve offered to bring specimens to public schools or to set up small displays in libraries (again, for free) but I’m told by teachers and those in charge that presentations about fossils sometimes lead to complaints from Christian conservative parents (and church groups) concerning forcing belief in evolution on students… more often than not, there are concerns about not making “waves” and few have been willing to take the risk. Over and over again, in the public eye, we downplay the paleontological and geological evidence for evolution and an ancient earth… or we undermine it through reckless public relations and infighting.

My Question: Can we both agree that much more could be done to inform the public about paleontological discoveries, considering the vast quantity of fossils unearthed every year?

Best Regards
Steve

By: sciencesofa

sciencesofa — Sun, 24 May 2009 16:46:23 +0000

Was ist wie ein Asteroideneinschlag, wie der Rosettastein, vergleichbar mit der Mondlandung und der Ermordung Kennedys…

… das anthropologische Äquivalent des Heiligen Grals und die wichtigste Entdeckung seit 47 Millionen Jahren, die alles ändern wird? Richtig, Darwinius masillae, ein urzeitliches Primätchen, 58 Zentimeter lang und vor 47 Millionen Jahren im zar…

By: Philip Camp

Philip Camp — Sun, 24 May 2009 00:18:27 +0000

Since the “missing link” was the link between species of 3-6 million years ago, and not 60 million, it proves very little besides the fact that biologists want creationists to shut up & that the media agree. So Darwinus has fingernails instead of claws, great; Devonian mollusks have compound eyes, which proves we came from mollusks instead of fish…

By: Penmachine words music comment

Penmachine words music comment — Sat, 23 May 2009 23:47:07 +0000

Ida the fossil: no missing link, but PR stunt

Researchers got sucked into a TV production, rushed their publication to meet a deadline a week before the show is to air, and then let themselves get swept into a media frenzy that has seriously distorted, misrepresented, and even lied about what th…

By: Possible Missing Link Found - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

Possible Missing Link Found - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum — Sat, 23 May 2009 22:31:49 +0000

[...] Zimmer appears not suitably impressed. Discover Magazine Blog: The Loom: Science Held Hostage [...]

By: J Pardo

J Pardo — Sat, 23 May 2009 18:56:05 +0000

Quoting Steve Marley:

My point was that there are enough fossil specimens already collected to present a decent “life through time” exhibit at a museum in every major and minor metropolitan area in the USA.

Why do you think that scientists collect those specimens? Why do you think that museums dedicate huge amounts of money to maintaining facilities to store and preserve those specimens?

By: Barista » Blog Archive » And God said, ‘let there be trash’ and lo, there was television

Sat, 23 May 2009 10:07:57 +0000

[...] the press conference. The television tail wagged the paper pooch a lot here, and Chris Mooney has an excellent post dissecting the grubbiness. Among other details, it allows us to deduce how the skunkworks gamed [...]

By: Wyn Williams

Wyn Williams — Sat, 23 May 2009 07:07:15 +0000

This is not a good and balanced story, there is no god given right for journalists to be given information not available to the rest of the world just to keep them happy.
At the most it could of been released a day or two earlier.
How about blaming the press for the hype, the press for the bad science appearing before the paper was subject to outside review and the press for acting like a bunch of spoilt, moaning and unprofessional kids.

The facts are it was released at a press conference and the material made available for reporters too do there job, I fail to see how journalists can possibly justify the disgraceful attitude that if people will not give (or have time to give) them pre-information they will simply make things up then blame others for there lies and hype because they did not give them the real information.

By: Steve Marley

Steve Marley — Sat, 23 May 2009 02:29:13 +0000

Hi J. Pardo,
Yes, you can see wonderful specimens in the handful of museums you mentioned, but Ohio is a long weekend trip from California or Oregon . My point was that there are enough fossil specimens already collected to present a decent “life through time” exhibit at a museum in every major and minor metropolitan area in the USA. As I suggested before, the public is not well served by the paleontological community, and it often feels like we’re pandering to pure entertainment with all the “robotic” dinosaur exhibits making the rounds.
Paleontologists need to do a much better job of communicating with the public. People need to be able to see more fossils in local museums and have more fossils to pass around the elementary and secondary school classroom. There needs to be less hype, spin and acrimony between academic, amateur fossil hunters and the press – otherwise the anti-evolution/creationist camp will continue to gain even more support.

By: Weekly PLoS Blog and Media Round-up « everyONE – the PLoS ONE community blog

Fri, 22 May 2009 23:48:49 +0000

[...] Thoughts from Kansas, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, The Scientist, Sandwalk, On Research…, The Loom and [...]

By: J Pardo

J Pardo — Fri, 22 May 2009 21:00:12 +0000

Quoting Steve Marley:

Where, for example, can a family go to see a well-curated display of trilobites, paleozoic fish or echinoderms?

Trilobites:

Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Museum of Natural History

Paleozoic Fish:

Cleveland Museum of Natural History, University of Nebraska State Museum, American Museum of Natural History, Sam Noble Museum of Natural History, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard

Echinoderms:

Cleveland Museum of Natural History, possibly the Indiana State Museum

Just a couple of thoughts.

By: Steve Marley

Steve Marley — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:39:31 +0000

As an amateur fossil collector who’s well aware of the “ownership controversy” that continues to plague the science of paleontology, I’m frequently disappointed by those publicity-seeking academics who seem to have forgotten the pleasures of doing pure research and who have abandoned their critical role in public education.
It seems as though many professional paleontologists (mostly those studying vertebrates) are obsessively trying to prevent amateurs from having access to any fossil site on public lands. Some paleontologists have alienated private land owners of fossil rich sites with less than generous deals and the implied threat of legislative proposals to “nationalize” all specimens. A few scientists seem determined to limit the general publics exposure to the wealth of fossils that are under their care. Where, for example, can a family go to see a well-curated display of trilobites, paleozoic fish or echinoderms? Of course, the natural history museums usually have plenty of dinosaur displays and mountains of rubber T-Rex’s for sale in the gift shop. The public is being poorly served in this regard.
Public relations disasters, like the Darwinius affair are a huge boon to the creationist/ anti-science community. Their sermons, lectures, blogs and web sites are having a field day with this story and the validity of the geological record and biological evolution will take a big hit with the public.
Those of us who love paleontology and wish that our nation’s citizens had a better understanding about earth sciences, better start working together in a more honest and transparent manner. The secrecy, self promotion and overall attitude of “exclusion” in the paleontology community has done great damage to our overall credibility.

By: James Hathaway

James Hathaway — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:32:39 +0000

In my experience, this is not an unusual outcome for a piece of news that gets involved with a TV production. The Hollywood publicity and marketing people do things in a way that fundamentally conflicts with the processes of science journalism, which theoretically operates in the realm of serious news and not entertainment. Basically, you have one field of communication/marketing where hype is a desired quality in conflict with another where it is considered toxic. This story provides a great case study (showing some negative consequences) for scientists and PIOs to use in future situations where an announcement tries to meld a serious science finding with major media marketing.

By: John Timmer

John Timmer — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:08:03 +0000

In regards to update 2, i’ve dealt with the scientific publishing system both as a scientist and as a journalist, and that sort of thing just never happened in my experience. The only reason that journals will accelerate the publication of a paper is if they get wind of an overlapping piece of work that will be published in a competing journal. Otherwise, press conferences operate within the embargo system run by journals – no press until the paper is released – and are typically coordinated in a way that ensures they occur within a 24-hour window near publication.

Obviously, with no print edition, PLoS One has more flexibility than a traditional journal, but I’m not aware of them doing anything of the sort in the past, and I think it sets a very bad precedent.

By: Friday Morning Linking Stuff | Tangled Up in Blue Guy

Friday Morning Linking Stuff | Tangled Up in Blue Guy — Fri, 22 May 2009 11:31:40 +0000

[...] Pushing “The Link” on an Unsupecting Public – IDA is a great fossil, but not the one that will change everything (I hate that phrase,) and will lead to more opportunities for creationists to mislead the public. [...]

By: Ceph

Ceph — Fri, 22 May 2009 10:42:48 +0000

With all due respect for the authors of the Darwinius paper, the parallels back to the Czerkas’ and Nat. Geo’s Archaeoraptor-gate are disturbing.

A rare specimen is sold by shady dealers at a mineral show for a huge sum of money.
The buyers are compelled to make a huge promotion campaign for the new acquisition – obviously both specimens were scientifically invaluable and beautifully preserved (disregarding that Achaeoraptor turned out to be a chimeric fabrication) but the chosen degree of publicity and hype cannot in my opinion be fully separated from the need to justify the generous price and the opportunity to propagate pet theories within the specific area of palaeontology (secondarily flightless maniraptors/anthropoid adapids).
A pop-science venue (Nat.Geographic/Atlantic Productions) is chosen to help proliferate the news, a fast publication is pushed at the expense of thorough examination, and an unsubstantiated hype builds up at the time of the press release.

The comparison is of course unfair. Darwinius was legally collected in 1982, it was published properly in a scientific journal (although ICZN recognition appears to be problematic), and there is certainly nothing to indicate that the authors have in any way suppressed unwanted, preliminary data, as the Czerkas’ did.
But the similar choice of marketing has produced similar problems for the actual science involved and raised similar voices of concern in the scientific world.

By: Mark Henderson

Mark Henderson — Fri, 22 May 2009 09:47:44 +0000

Also, the PLoS paper WAS made available under embargo to the press — but only to selected individuals and under very unusual restrictions. I was invited to read it by Atlantic Productions on Tuesday morning (I’m Science Editor of The Times in London), but I had to go to their offices to read it and wasn’t allowed to take a copy away. I also had to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which meant I wasn’t able to approach anyone else for comment until the embargo lifted. The Guardian also had advance access (they got to see more in advance than we did, and earlier). So — obviously because they bought the film rights — did the BBC. But other UK papers (Independent, Telegraph etc) got nothing. This is a very weird (and in my experience unprecedented) way to manage the release of published science.

By: Sigmund

Sigmund — Fri, 22 May 2009 09:31:54 +0000

Rob #19 said:
“in my field it has the reputation of being a journal to send your papers when you can’t get them in anywhere else.”
I highly doubt we are dealing with that situation here.
I suspect it is the other advantage of PLOS One that is the critical point – the extremely rapid review time. Most papers submitted to research journals take months (or even years!) to get through the peer review process – with the vast majority of that time simply being administrative or waiting for months for a single reviewer to get an hour or so to go through the manuscript and write a few lines of comments. Its a huge deficiency in the standard peer review process that PLOS should be thanked for tackling. There really is no need whatsoever to have such a long review period and it is mostly down to bad administration of other journals that this is allowed to happen and to be considered the norm in scientific publication.
In the current case I cannot see why Nature or Science would have rejected the publication of such a wonderful fossil. They would, however, have taken much longer to get the manuscript into print. As far as I know there is no competitive group seeking to publish another similar primate fossil at the moment (the usual reason to choose a lower impact but faster to press journal) so I suspect it is the tie in with the TV and book that necessitated the fast publication turn around. I suspect the shortage of available time may also explain the authors forgetting the requirements for the assignment of the correct scientific name to the find.

By: Michael Eisen

Michael Eisen — Fri, 22 May 2009 08:44:42 +0000

I think sending it to PLoS One makes perfect sense actually. Nature, Science and PLoS Biology combine rigorous peer-review to ensure scientific quality of the works they publish with a subjective assessment of the impact of the work. PLoS One, on the other hand, only reviews papers to ensure their scientific quality – it leaves decisions about the significance of a work to the readers and community. The paper was reviewed by an academic editor and 3 reviewers who are experts in the field, who collectively judged it to be technically sound (I know some of you disagree, but I find this to be true of many papers describing new fossils – certainly there have been several heated debates over the quality of fossil descriptions published recently in Nature…).

In this case, the authors had clearly come to their own decision about the significance of the work – and presumably didn’t feel like wrangling with editors about how the paper would be perfect for Nature if only they added this figure, and speculated a little more about its importance in the discussion… So they made a sensible decision that wasn’t – as some seem inclined to believe – driven by a desire for a less rigorous review process, which is not what PLoS One provides.

[Full disclosure for those who don't know me - I am a co-founder of PLoS]