The Asteroid-in-Spring Hypothesis. When two paleontologists turned on each other

[Oxytropidoceras]

The Asteroid-in-Spring Hypothesis

Two paleontologists have turned on each other, each claiming to

have found new evidence about the worst day on Earth.

By Kerry Howley, Intelligencer, August 27, 2024

 

Yours,

 

Paul H.

 

Edited August 28 by Oxytropidoceras
fixed headline

[jpc]

Interesting read...

 

[dingo2]

Quote

The field of paleontology is mean. It has always been mean. It is, in the words of Uppsala University professor Per Ahlberg, “a honeypot of narcissists.” It is “a snake pit of personality disorders.” “An especially nasty area of academia,” the Field Museum’s Jingmai O’Connor calls it. Among the subfields, nastiness correlates with the size and carnivorousness of the creature under study, the comity possible among those who study ammonites being unlikely among those who study T. rex

This is why I find paleontology hard to take seriously as a field sometimes. At least in the hot topics where it seems like everybody has a pet theory they desperately want to be correct and are extremely eager to declare victory using dubious information (relative to the standards of evidence in other fields). When the "consensus" about what an animal looked like, lived like, and ate can change drastically every few years, then maybe it is a sign that conclusions being reached are a little premature.

[hadrosauridae]

37 minutes ago, dingo2 said:

This is why I find paleontology hard to take seriously as a field sometimes. At least in the hot topics where it seems like everybody has a pet theory they desperately want to be correct and are extremely eager to declare victory using dubious information (relative to the standards of evidence in other fields). When the "consensus" about what an animal looked like, lived like, and ate can change drastically every few years, then maybe it is a sign that conclusions being reached are a little premature.

 

The problem is the current academic "market".  There are way more graduates than job openings, and if you want to get hired, get promoted, get tenure, etc.  you have to be constantly "producing" a result.  You are expected to publish multiple papers a year.  The term is "publish or perish".  The field is also extremely cash-poor.  If you want funding for an expedition, or equipment, you need donors.  If you want to court big money donors, you better be known and in the spotlight.  That requires theatrics, wild claims, anything to keep you in a media front page. The final result is you wind up a high percentage of over-inflated egos and flamboyance instead of high quality science. 

Edited August 28 by hadrosauridae

[FossilDAWG]

1 hour ago, hadrosauridae said:

 

That requires theatrics, wild claims, anything to keep you in a media front page. The final result is you wind up a high percentage of over-inflated egos and flamboyance instead of high quality science. 

That does not fit the description of the great majority of paleontologists I have known, but I admit none of those people work specifically on dinosaurs. 

 

It's sad what has happened with the Tanis site.  It should be rigorously studied by a team of specialists who don't have a personal interest in proving it records the last day of the Cretaceous.

Regarding the controversy documented in the article linked in the OP, it seems to me During's paper is based in careful rigorous science, using methods to a significant degree developed by During and some of her coauthors.  DePalma's paper has so many problems it almost seems as if it wasn't peer reviewed, although that seems unlikely given that it was published in Scientific Reports.  It should not have been published without extensive revisions, most important being the need to provide information about how and where the isotope analysis was done, and having the raw data made available as a supplemental data file.  It is almost unbelievable to me that they were allowed to publish the paper in its current form.  Also, are we to believe that DePalma sent During the samples she used in her work, without ever asking what she was doing with them?  I am skeptical that he was unaware, or too disinterested to bother asking.

 

Don

[jpc]

2 hours ago, hadrosauridae said:

 

The problem is the current academic "market".  There are way more graduates than job openings, and if you want to get hired, get promoted, get tenure, etc.  you have to be constantly "producing" a result.  You are expected to publish multiple papers a year.  The term is "publish or perish".  The field is also extremely cash-poor.  If you want funding for an expedition, or equipment, you need donors.  If you want to court big money donors, you better be known and in the spotlight.  That requires theatrics, wild claims, anything to keep you in a media front page. The final result is you wind up a high percentage of over-inflated egos and flamboyance instead of high quality science. 

This is especially true (and Jingmai said it) among theropod paleontologists, but it is a wild exaggeration to include all of paleo in this.  I found the writer to be prone to drama and exaggeration, such as this.  Which made me wonder about how much she did allow the story to become maybe more dramatic than needed.     

Edited August 28 by jpc

[hadrosauridae]

2 hours ago, jpc said:

This is especially true (and Jingmai said it) among theropod paleontologists, but it is a wild exaggeration to include all of paleo in this.  I found the writer to be prone to drama and exaggeration, such as this.  Which made me wonder about how much she did allow the story to become maybe more dramatic than needed.     

 

Sorry, it wasnt my intent to insinuate that all academic paleos were like this.  My meaning was that these are the situations that cause some to become that way.

[patelinho7]

When times turn tough, all professions become one: theatre 

[FranzBernhard]

10 hours ago, dingo2 said:

where it seems like everybody has a pet theory they desperately want to be correct

This is in clear contradiction to proper science.

Franz Bernhard

Edited August 29 by FranzBernhard

[DPS Ammonite]

Paleontology involved with the 99.9+% of the other fossils (non vertebrates) seems to have much less drama and press coverage. When was the last time that you saw a story about the controversy surrounding a brachiopod being sold at an auction for a large sum of money? @Tidgy's Dad

[hadrosauridae]

7 hours ago, FranzBernhard said:

This is in clear contradiction to proper science.

Franz Bernhard

 

yes it is, but it happens, and not just within paleo.  Its not that a set of conditions are found, then a hypothesis is created to explain it (as it should be). Instead a researcher  creates a scenario (ie, T.rex was an obligate scavenger), then tries like hell to find the evidence to prove that theory. 

I believe this is also an outcome of the "publish or perish" model.

Edited August 29 by hadrosauridae

[jpc]

1 hour ago, hadrosauridae said:

 

yes it is, but it happens, and not just within paleo.  Its not that a set of conditions are found, then a hypothesis is created to explain it (as it should be). Instead a researcher  creates a scenario (ie, T.rex was an obligate scavenger), then tries like hell to find the evidence to prove that theory. 

I believe this is also an outcome of the "publish or perish" model.

Publish or perish is one thing, but there is also Any Press is Good press.  "Hmmmm... what can I say to get my museum (and my name) in the newsfeed...?  Oh, here's a good one... T rex is a scavenger".  (Not to pick on any one dino paleontologist).  Another fun thing we see a lot is a story about a non dinosuar where the new fossil or whatever gets compared to T rex.  Compare it to T rex and you instantly get press time.