Let me say straight away that this post is in no way
intended to offend anybody whatsoever in the palaeontological world! Rather it
is just an objective look into how some people’s perception of palaeontologists
may lead to an unfortunate stereotypical opinion of science whilst, at the same
time, may also be indicative of the odd failing in our community.
I’ve been thinking about this post for a while now which was
initially prompted by a comment by Jon Tennant that he had been told by a palaeontologist
that bloggers such as ourselves and our other fellow web publishers are
unqualified to make any relevant comments regarding the science since, that
before you could make a comment, “…..you
have to be an author of a study or you are under qualified”.
Whether this was tongue in cheek or not is neither here nor
there but I wondered how prevalent this attitude may be throughout the
palaeoworld. A very recent comment by fellow blogger Ian Garafalo, of the Other Branch, that he didn’t “…..really fit in with the rest of the online
paleo community” was also
suggestive that anybody who did not conform with the norm as established by the
general paleo community was somehow disconnected from the larger community as a
whole. This may simply be a matter of perception but it may also harbour one or
two divisive points that we can and should address.
I like to think that all of us in the paleo community share
a common bond and we all want to make a contribution in some form or another.
At the bottom end of the scale is the ordinary guy in the street who has a
passing interest in palaeontology such as when, perhaps, there is a new
dinosaur announced and he wants to know more about the animal, what it was
like, what it ate and where and when it
lived.
At the other end of the spectrum are our very best palaeontologists,
many of whom are world renowned, and command the respect and admiration of the
rest of us. These are the men and women who are as familiar to us as a
Hollywood star would be to everybody else – people such as Benson, Brusatte, Horner,
Holtz, Currie, Witmer etc. These are at the very top end of the paleo tree.
And in between these two groups are the rest of us – other
palaeontologists, the preparators, the avocationists, the bloggers, the
students, the museum volunteers, the artists – the list goes on. Each of us, in
our own way, make a contribution to our science and, regardless of the size and
merit of that contribution, are all therefore equally important.
However, professional palaeontologists are the most
important contributing group in our community. It is through them that we get
the very latest information that is brought to us through the various journals
and conferences and, on occasion, that big story that breaks on a worldwide
scale and is brought to us via the various media outlets. Let’s face it – all of us thirst for the next
paper that bring us that detail we have
been waiting for and, even better than
that, when something breaks that many of us did not even know of or had heard
about. These are great moments and the buzz in the paleo world when this
happens can last for days, sometimes weeks and then the cycle begins again as
we wait for the next story to break.
So our palaeontologists are important and are nearly always
busy but, like all of us, they are all human beings and suffer the same trials
and tribulations as the rest of us. This is extremely important and something
that the rest of us must always consider. They have to deal with every day work
and family issues and, as a result, suffer the same failings as the rest of us.
So it should come as no surprise that, on occasion, the busy
palaeontologist may be unable or unwilling to talk to us, answer an email or share
his data with others. Indeed, with some research, it is essential to maintain
an element of discretion and only their fellow workers would be privy to that
research. And they will have bad days –
real bad days.
And herein lies the problem in as much that these occasional
lapses may be interpreted by Joe Public as a form of elitism. The
palaeontologist (in fact any scientist in any discipline) can be seem as if to be keeping things to him
or herself, unwilling to discuss or share unless with their intimates and, to the layman, this behaviour can be interpreted
as disingenuous and unwelcome.
But is elitism a totally bad thing? In many ways our elite
palaeontologists are exactly that because they are the best at what they do.
They have spent years of toil and study to get where they are and the academic
selection process enables them to progress onward and upward and they are,
therefore, selected as elite by achievement.
Having reached this status, the palaeontologist then has a
delicate balance to maintain and, on occasion, this may not always appear palatable.
They may choose not to disseminate data, can be obstructive and, as we have
already heard, perhaps disregard other peoples work or comments because they
are not “real” palaeontologists.
Sometimes this attitude may also be directed at their fellow
palaeontologists and I actually find this to be more disturbing than actually,
for example, being directed at someone like me. Just because you believe or
even know that you are right should not give anyone the right to disregard somebody
else’s hypothesis because since, and
before you know where you are, splinter groups arise and the harsh spectre of tribalism raises its ugly head and, as I have said before, a couple of factions throwing insults around about
each other benefits nobody. Unfortunately this scenario has occurred on occasion
and I know of at least two rather high profile cases.
However, as unfortunate these cases are, they are still
relatively unusual but when a similar attitude is reflected upon those outside
the professional sphere then we have a problem. Why should any reasonable
comment or theory be dismissed just because they are not published in an
approved journal? And, even worse in some quarters, what if they are published
in a non-approved publication?
No matter who you are, you should not be ostracised because
you are not a “real” palaeontologist and you should certainly not have your
ideas discredited – not because they are wrong – but because that they are
published in a blog or in a non-sanctioned journal. Indeed, online publishers
face a far greater critical audience and they know, or should know, that when
you put your work, opinions and ideas up for public scrutiny that you will
attract attention and you should be prepared to accept this criticism. Critique
the work yes but do not ignore it or regard it as below status.
Importantly, interpretation of data from all quarters needs
to be fair and as accurate as possible. Unfortunately palaeontology, or indeed
any science, is seldom a straight forward affair. In an ideal world we would
find our fossils, prepare them, measure and research them and this would enable
us to form our hypotheses about them whilst, at the same time, being able to
disqualify others – the data supports the hypothesis – simple.
As we are all aware, however, this is seldom the case and
the palaeontologist again needs to maintain a delicate balancing act. In our science, because we are dealing with
fossil remains, there are many occasions when a theory can only be formed
because of subjectivity and all of us – but all of us – will do this. The trick
is not to let any biases or any preconceived ideas influence your decisions.
This is never easy since data can be notoriously erroneous and deciding which
data is useful and that which is not can make and break a theory. Indeed,
testability is crucial.
It is up to the palaeontologist to try and present the facts
in a clear and concise way that in no way has had the data bent or twisted to
accommodate the hypothesis. This is the very essence of good science because
then the palaeontologist is not only understanding his own research but is
always questioning himself about it time and time again before he is happy.
This is a discipline to be admired since it must take a long long time to
develop.
Having said all this I have to say that the vast majority of
my experiences within the palaeontological community have been nothing but good
at all levels of the science. There has been the odd occasion where I think I
may have been a little hard done by, unfairly criticised or ignored but these are
extremely few and far between. Indeed, over the years, I use these experiences
to learn about how the palaeoworld works and, more importantly, to learn about
myself as well as others.
Palaeontology of today is global. We are able to communicate
with each other in ways that are unparalleled when compared with the past.
Avocationists, amateurs and everybody else are able to communicate with palaeontologists
of all levels via the social networks, the blogs and the conferences. Once we were only able to watch these guys on
the occasional TV program or when reading the odd magazine article or book –
today we communicate with each other on a surprisingly regular basis.
We know who is in the field and where they are, we get instant
notification of new discoveries and the same with new publications. Everything
we see and do is disseminated instantly amongst all of us and I, for one, would
not want it any other way. Palaeontology of today is fast moving, fluid and
ever changing and where we will be in fifty years’ time blows the mind.
So we have to accept that there will be times when things do
not quite go as we want, when people do not quite respond in the way we would
expect and our friends and colleagues may appear a little short sometimes. This
is the price we all pay for today’s instant communication and when you consider
how rare these discretions are in the palaeoworld then surely it is a price
worth paying.
6 comments:
You know, in all honesty, I haven't had too many run ins with the "elite level" that were negative. I've had a few never return emails, but I get so much input from so many others and have very nice conversations (some of them being of the nature that I am politely being told that I am not entirely correct) that I don't really hold it against them or anything.
I keep having to find out that a lot of people who seem to think themselves "real" palaeontologists are much worse at doing a proper literature search and giving credit where due than those they consider "not real" palaeontologists.
need I say more?
What gets me, as someone definitely in the bottom group, is when, say on the DML, an interesting new discovery breaks and all that gets discussed for endless posts is some technicality regarding the chosen name. There generally seems to be a lot of bickering and oneupmanship on the DML.
I don't know, I just have an idealised view of naturalists and palaeontologists, I guess, and I think they all should be like David Attenborough or something.
Paul W.
Thanks for the comments everyone. My experience with palaeontologists at all levels is nearly always a good experience. Part of this post was an attempt to explain why I believe that, on occasion, they may appear aloof or disdainful.
Heinrichs comment is also correct and I too have found that there is an astonishing amount of elite professionlism in non-elite workers. Perhaps that is a poor way of expressing myself but I hope you can see what I mean.
The DML is a funny place sometimes and I confess that I understand the comments about bickering and oneupmanship. But I frequent the DML everyday, make the odd comment but usually just take it all in and delete the vast majority of it.
However, there also some great discussions on there, you can learn a great deal and are always getting the latest news as it breaks. And I know exactly who will comment on which subjects as well - sad but true!
I much like Ian have had a real burnout with the palaeo community this part year. My experience is in the art sector, and for the most part the palaeontologists at the top are not the problem.
Where I'm finding the most frustration is the try-hard palaeo-fans (or as one of my palaeontologist friends calls them palaeo-whinnies).
These are the people who never did get their qualifications or the job, but still want to strut around like they COULD have. So they engage in the oneupmanship mentioned in the previous corner, and just make life unpleasant for the rest of us who don't pretend.
Whether they know their stuff or not, I personally, don't give a BEEPing BLEEP whether you could have been a real palaeontologist or not. They aren't, they should just deal with it, like the rest of us who didn't get to "live the dream", and deal with the rest of us like people. Not threats to their little delusional fantasies.
Where I DO run into trouble with palaeontologists is their developed defences to palaeo-whinnies. I understand this, once you've dealt with a few of these annoying people (and they would have to deal with them A LOT) you lump everyone without the credential or job in with them. It is safer that way...
I totally understand it, but that doesn't mean I have to like being lumped in with them. I'm just an up front primary teacher who wants to talk and draw the awesomeness that was prehistory for people who haven't been exposed. In my experience people enjoy my sharing as much or in some cases more than the actual scientists (I worked at the Tyrrell as a tour guide for 4 years).
When dealing with the palaeo community, I typically end up with having to deal with a lot of people (who hold no official position) telling me how stupid I am about it cause I don't use the latin or agree with their pet theory. I also then get politely ignored by real palaeontolgists, who don't want to risk getting involved with yet another one of "them"...
So again I've abandoned palaeo sadly (though I love your blog and writing style Mark... you're one of the few palaeo-blogs I've stuck with :P) and gone off to sell out as a part time artist in the board game industry. It isn't as fulfilling or awe inspiring, but at least I'm respected as much/little but make money while being harped at by fan boys (which is a universal trend about fandom isn't it. The fans feel a degree of hostility to those who "make", and lash out... I only tolerate here as I make money, and therefore AM legit :P).
Hi Craig and thank you for a very thought provoking and interesting comment. I know exactly what you mean by palaeo-whinnies but it is a shame that they do not put their what is sometimes considerable knowledge to a more constructive use - anybody can just sit there and criticise.
Everybody has a right to make a contribution and it is very sad that there is an element out there (thankfully small) that see fit to do nothing but stir things up for what appears to be the sake of it.
Well I hope you stick with it as well Craig and come back into the paleo-fold. As with any community, the more diverse we are the further we evolve and I absolutely believe this. Everybody has a place but it must not be at the expense of others.
Post a Comment