Collecting Ethics And Science?

[silverphoenix]

Well as some of you know, I border between collector and scientist. I donate what is scientifically valuable, and keep what is not. I know that there are people who are strictly on one side or another--either believe everything belongs in a museum/state, or keeps everything regardless of whether it's the next big link in evolution or not.

I want to know what everyone thinks.

This would obviously be the wrong place to ask why anyone would want everything in a museum--I find most of those types in the universities.

But why would you keep something without thinking of its scientific value or what knowledge it can unlock for all of us? Why is it that people collect things that are obviously scientifically significant and yet they won't allow them to be studied?

To me, it's worth more to reconstruct paleoclimates and determine the true boundary of the Eocene coastline than to keep the crocodile tooth and piece of turtle shell that I've found at the Stone City Formation. This is why I'm donating those. The knowledge gained, plus the perk of having my name on the write up and associated with the specimens is far more valuable than the actual specimens.

Most scientifically valuable fossils are not worth much. So why do people keep them and never allow them to be studied? Isn't it wrong to do so?

[Terry Dactyll]

Silverphoenix.....I have a couple of things that should go in a museum, but what tends to happen in a lot of cases, the material isnt on public display, its donated, a paper is written about it, then it goes into the storage area, only ever seen when someone requests to see it..... The things Ive found I'd like to enjoy a while, and maybe they can write a paper and file them after Ive gone.....

Edited October 20, 2009 by Terry Dactyll

[Auspex]

Presupposing that an avocational collector might recognize a given specimen as scientifically important (which is difficult, since there is no way to know what academic studies might be going on at any given time), there remains a disconnect between the enthusiast and the researcher; who do you call? Few amateur collectors are in a position to establish a relationship with an institution's paleontology department, and few researchers have the time to talk with them if they did. For the vast majority of cases, the roadblocks to communication are close to insurmountable.

That said, if I somehow learned that a fossil in my collection was wanted for research, I would be thrilled to donate it.

[jax]

I agree with Terry on this one! I just found some Mosasaur teeth that the Museum wants, but like he said, they would study them for a day, week, or month, then would be put in a drawer or something. I dont mind letting them borrow them for study, but would like them back. Now on the other hand, if I found something large, like a skull or something, I would donate that, but would want a cast of the original for my collection.

Also, I have heard that a specific piece maybe loaned or traded to another Museum to get other wanted pieces. Im not sure if that happens or not, but would not like my piece leaving the Museum without me knowing about it.

Thats just my thoughts on it

[jax]

That said, if I somehow learned that a fossil in my collection was wanted for research, I would be thrilled to donate it.

At Jax U, we would love to study that last fossil nest you got . Donations welcome!

[silverphoenix]

Well I understand that if you find something really nice, it's yours and you'd like to hold onto it. At the same time, my focus is the specimens that collectors would think are junk for the most part and unimpressive anyways. I also think it's more important to donate specimens that are scientifically valuable for the simple reason that the information gained will be there as long as there are people. The specimen after you kick the bucket will 99% likely be lost or sold unless you specify it in your will to be donated. Even then it has to be thoroughly labeled including the specific site. The specimens I have would be almost worthless if I just said they were from the stone city FM instead of pointing out the specific spot and strata.

Yes the museum does put the specimen in storage since anything published has to be available for study. In other words, a paper cannot be written on something in private hands. While it's true that museums are backlogged by many years, if there's a researcher who wants to do research on your fossils now, I think it's important to let them.

I guess the main point I'm getting at is that most paleontologists will not get their behinds out in the field and go get the fossils like we do. Most discoveries are made by collectors and without us, science would be without a leg. It's our responsibility to do our part .

I'm going to be doing a research paper on the vertebrates of the stone city formation this coming semester--is there anyone that would happen to of found any turtle shell, crocodile teeth, mammal or bird bones, gar scales, etc? Most of these are unimpressive and pretty much worthless to collectors, but would do a whole lot to increase our knowledge of the ancient world

[Bear]

Ah, your question is a bit deeper than it would seem at first glance. I think the real question is: why collect fossils?

This is going to be a little different for each of us that do so. There will be some shared stuff as well, things like the thrill of realizing that little irregularity is actually an entire specimen waiting to be retrieved from its matrix. Seeing the traces in the road cut and realizing the tip was a good one, finding that abandoned quarry noted on the out - of - date geographic survey map...you know, the things that really ring our bell. The adventure of being in a new place on an adventure in the wilderness.

Beyond that, we are each going to have our individual reasons to collect. Some think it is their contribution to the advancement of science. Some think it is gathering wealth or investment, some for the thrill of discovery or just for the fun of it.

Myself, I like the feeling of being connected to the very distant past, learning something new, uncovering something that has been hidden under a layer of stone for many millions of years. I imagine what the creature looked like when it was alive, how it acted and how it moved. I do my own research, make some models, think about that stuff a bunch...it is fun. I also clean things up for other folks, buy and sell, talk about the fossils....for fun. I love to examine the specimens and admire how they are built, their symmetry and geometry....appreciate them from an aesthetic perspective. That last bit alone is sufficient justification for me.

If my son wishes to donate my collection to a museum when I am dead, he can do so. Until then the fossils stay in my cases and drawers and on my bench. If I discover anything of value I will share it.

[Ramo]

I have donated a quite a few items. Some just small shark teeth, some mosasaur verts, and a very broken up and incomplete plesiosaur. http://www.oceansofkansas.com/FHSM_VP-16459.html

I have also had some mosasaur teeth included in papers where casts were made, and I got the originals back.

I am have a mosasaur skull that is about 70% complete, and have considered donating it and having a cast given back to me. What I have found out is that it costs a lot to have a cast of a skull done, and most museums don't have the money to get a cast made. (Even if it's only one of 13 of the species ever found, and probably in the top 5 for most complete.)

That being said. I will probably continue to donate some items, mainly because it kind of makes me feel good to be contributing to science, and the curator of the museum I donate to has helped me a ton in learning about my area. He is also a nice guy, that doesn't ever make me feel like an idiot even though I'm sure I have asked many stupid questions.

Ramo

[jkfoam]

Silverphoenix,

Interesting discussion. I think I vote with Auspex. Further I must disagree with some of your statements. You said that a paper cannot be written on a specimen in private hands. Do you mean to say that a paper cannot be written by an individual unless he is affiliated with a University or a museum. I don't think so. I have close knowledge of many papers being written by individuals employed by private companies. Also I know of several individuals who have written papers describing fossils that did so entirely on their own with out financial help from anyone. In these cases the private authors have kept possession of the Type specimen with the agreement they will turn them over to the publishing institution when they are no longer actively working in paleontology either privately or as an employ of a company (Someone working for an oil company).

You say you are writing a paper on the vertebrates of the Stone City Beds at the brazos River. Good. I can't wait to read the paper. It ha long needed to be done. It seems to me the TAMU, U of Texas, Rice U, U of Houston and most every university with a geology program in Texas collects almost annually at Whiskey Bridge and some have done so since the late 1800s. Dumble, Stenzel, G.D. Harris, K.V.W. Palmer, Gardner, etc. also collected there. You should have a wealth of material to analyze. But you know, I can't think of one non University museum that can offer you anything. In fact I don't know of a single non University museum in Texas that is actively sponsoring any paleontological research right now. There may be a few but I am not aware of who they are.

Man, I'm rambling. Back to the point. Communication is a two way street, It seems right now it is up to the private individual collector to bring to the University Geology Dept. specimen that he may recognize as significant or scientifically important. What are the Universities doing to communicate with the private individual collectors. Does anyone from the Universities visit or communicate with the various fossil collecting organizations such as the Paleo group of the Houston Gem and Mineral Society or the Central Texas Paleo group or the dallas Paleo Group. I recognize that you communicate with this forum.

I spend alot of time trying to identify the fossils I have found. If a fossil has been published then I don't feel the specimen I have is significant even if it is relatively rare. It has been studied. If I knew of a compeling reason I may donate the specimen to a University but it would have to be compeling.

JKFoam

[tracer]

rather than comment on the issue at the moment, i'll ask a question regarding the issue. can anybody tell me what the main benefits to mankind are that come from the study of fossils by academics? i mean, i know that geologists use forams to lead them to oil, but other than that kind of stuff..

and don't get me wrong, if we're heading toward that whole jurassic park stuff, then count me the heck in because i will be the first in line (heavily armed) to volunteer to go in there and deal with some serious social encounters. but otherwise...

i mean i realize that academics write papers and all, and that those papers are available to other academics, and i just love information for its own sake, but if somebody wants to know if i should have my stuff or if they should have my stuff, then i guess my first question is how does it make the world a better place if they have my stuff?

just askin'...

[PaleoPutz]

My only problem with what you (silverphoenix) are saying is that I don't have any fossils that are junk. I haven't found much on my own but everything I have found has been the next, "my precious". My wife thinks I'm crazy. It has been a rush to find what I have. I might loan something to a museum, but it would be hard to do. I frequently give inexpensive fossils to students, but it's almost like I'm giving away a kidney or something. They only thing I think I would turn over right away is something undescribed.

[Guest N.AL.hunter]

Instead of donating the fossil to a museum or for permanent study, why can't detailed pictures, casts/molds/models be made of the specimen? That way, the "professionals" can do their studies and the finder can keep his/her "treasure". Someone above has done this, and it seems perfectly reasonable to me. The Professionals can ask to see it again if they need to, but why do they need the "ownership" of the actual item? If I ever find something I think is scientifically valuable, I will alert someone, but they will be told that they can study it all they want,and the ownership remains with me.

[Harry Pristis]

Well as some of you know, I border between collector and scientist. I donate what is scientifically valuable, and keep what is not. I know that there are people who are strictly on one side or another--either believe everything belongs in a museum/state, or keeps everything regardless of whether it's the next big link in evolution or not.

I want to know what everyone thinks.

This would obviously be the wrong place to ask why anyone would want everything in a museum--I find most of those types in the universities.

But why would you keep something without thinking of its scientific value or what knowledge it can unlock for all of us? Why is it that people collect things that are obviously scientifically significant and yet they won't allow them to be studied?

To me, it's worth more to reconstruct paleoclimates and determine the true boundary of the Eocene coastline than to keep the crocodile tooth and piece of turtle shell that I've found at the Stone City Formation. This is why I'm donating those. The knowledge gained, plus the perk of having my name on the write up and associated with the specimens is far more valuable than the actual specimens.

Most scientifically valuable fossils are not worth much. So why do people keep them and never allow them to be studied? Isn't it wrong to do so?

There are problems with the way this question is framed - faulty premises.

First, I want to niggle about the use of the term, "scientist" in the question. I am a scientist though I don't work for an institution of science. Science is a way to operate in the world based on . . . well, I won't define it here since you all should know it. Museums and universities are institutions organized to promote science. An employees of such an institutions may be no more a scientist than I am a scientist. They just get paid for work different from mine.

That said, I assert that an "obviously scientifically significant" fossil in my drawer is fulfilling a significant function for me, the scientist.

It seems to me that this question tries to set up an imaginary tension between the pursuit of knowledge versus collectors. The real tension is with "institutional workers" versus collectors. Institutional workers (let's call 'em professional paleontologists or "ProPals") need access to fossils to make progress in their field - publish or perish!

Every fossil that is not curated in an institutional collection is a potential erosion of current or future ProPals' livelihood. Oh, I'm not saying that ProPals don't want to contribute to the sum of human knowledge. I am saying that there is always another motive in their desire to control access to fossils. I say, for one example, that it is not their philanthropic side that motivates institutions and organizations (think SVP) to lobby for laws which restrict collecting to ProPals.

Face it, ProPals are human. They want all the fossils, just like I do. What ProPals do at their institutions is often significant only to other ProPals. When they get the right fossils, there can be new understandings among the cognoscenti or new ammunition to use against the young-earthers (think Tiktaalik). Mostly, it's ho-hum stuff they do.

Donating to a museum should be a business transaction - appraisals, cash, tax deductions, recognition - a quid pro quo arrangement. There is no issue of right or wrong involved.

[Auspex]

It has been covered in other threads, but I'd like to re-cap here that any specimen worth doing a research paper on needs to be accessible for examination in the future. This is why institutions insist that significant, research-worthy specimens be remanded to their custody.

[Frank Menser]

Let me preface this by stating that I have donated hundrreds of fossils and mineral specimens to museums and unfortunately, far from being studied, some of them ended up in back rooms in boxes...forgotten. Others ended up in the trash or went home with somebody - never to be seen again. One piece(a rare S. Fla Mammoth tooth) was badly damaged by Museum volunteers before it finally disappeared.

I am all for research and discovery. What I object to is the proprietory airs some museum personel have who think every fossil belongs to them. I have been denied access to collecting sites after Museum personel and their students trashed the places so badly the owner of the land shut it down.

Would I donate the rare items in my collection? As it stands - I probably would. No one else in my family appreciates them except my wife. So aside from what money they might raise for her if I croak first, they are better off in a museum.

[silverphoenix]

To my understanding, these vertebrate fossils we are researching and then submitting a paper to the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology of, must be available for study by any researcher who requests to do so. This is why they go into the state repository.

I don't mean that the fossils are "junk"--everyone knows I got my butt jumped on for defending those who collect the less appreciated, less valuable specimen. I was referring to the fact that if someone for instance dug up a piece of turtle shell as I have, they would probably think it was extremely unimpressive and probably chunk it. I've seen it done with other fossils.

"Scientist" is a broadly used term--her to describe someone who performs research in scientific/paleontological matters. Perhaps I should have used researcher?

Listen, I'm not the enemy here and obviously there is a lack/non-existence of communication between those who base their career on researching paleontology/paleobiology, and those who simple collect. I know some of you very much dislike these people, but those dino shows you see on discovery, those geology textbooks your children use, our entire understanding of the ancient would be very sparse and very erroneous if it wasn't for these people and if it wasn't for collectors donating/sharing their finds with them.

Everyone can do as they see right--I only presented a question in hopes of gaining an answer and a better understanding of the way others in this hobby think. I am clearly right in the middle of the two side, but bridging the two looks like it's easier said than done.

[Auspex]

...bridging the two looks like it's easier said than done.

That's why they need to be bridged.

Any observations/ideas on how to build a dialog with "The Institutions" would be a welcome outcome of this thread. I can't help but think that both "sides" could benefit.

Who among us has an experience to relate (good or bad, it matters not for this purpose)?

[tracer]

i'm still waiting for somebody to tell me what the benefits are to mankind of the stuff being studied by any given person or group. i mean, obviously, that's the issue. if a scientist studying the fossils i have will lead to the next iphone or something, then that needs to happen. but if the stuff will just get squirreled away until maybe a paper gets written about it (maybe not) and the paper is one that i won't have access to without paying $12 for it and subscribing to a scholarly journal service, probably having to wear a labcoat and a fake moustache, then the stuff might as well be entertaining me rather than them. but even the "serious" amateurs hold the lame-o's like me in disdain and won't waste their time talking to me at shows or venues where other "mind lords" higher in their hierarchy of "real" avocational "scientists" congregate and regale each other with finds far beyond my meager meagernesses. so the bottom line really is that many human endeavors seem to disingenuously be actually geared toward showing who's better than whom. which is annoying.

p.s. - a relative of mine donated quite a bit of stuff to museums and was subsequently very upset when the stuff wasn't on display for a particularly long period, and was suspected to have been sold or traded for other material in that endless pursuit of novelty and one-upmanship that is the bastion of mind-lordednismesquenicity.

wait - what was this topic about? ya'll i have to confess that i instinctively get hick and belligerent when around eggheads. forgive me, please. i like latin.

[fig rocks]

if a scientist studying the fossils i have will lead to the next iphone or something, then that needs to happen.

wait - what was this topic about? ya'll i have to confess that i instinctively get hick and belligerent when around eggheads. forgive me, please. i like latin.

Bravo... Bravo...!

[siteseer]

But why would you keep something without thinking of its scientific value or what knowledge it can unlock for all of us? Why is it that people collect things that are obviously scientifically significant and yet they won't allow them to be studied?

To me, it's worth more to reconstruct paleoclimates and determine the true boundary of the Eocene coastline than to keep the crocodile tooth and piece of turtle shell that I've found at the Stone City Formation. This is why I'm donating those. The knowledge gained, plus the perk of having my name on the write up and associated with the specimens is far more valuable than the actual specimens.

Most scientifically valuable fossils are not worth much. So why do people keep them and never allow them to be studied? Isn't it wrong to do so?

Some people enjoy possessing items that they know others covet. They may be the same people who get upset when their donated items aren't immediately/ever on display.

You're right. A significant specimen can be a just a piece of turtle shell or a crocodile tooth if it is referrable to a taxon previously undocumented in a given fauna or it can be an additional representative of an uncommon taxon. Fossils of land mammals found in a marine bed are generally rare so anything identifiable is considered important. A mammal researcher would appreciate the donation of half a tooth or a bone end in that case, especially where more complete material is unlikely to surface.

Similar to your point, I can understand the argument that paleontologists should have access to any fossil they consider important (an "eminent domain" issue?) because the average person, lacking the proper facility to securely store it, might mishandle or lose that specimen There are many missing holotypes that were in the custody of the owner but were later lost somewhere among intervening generations so that it wasn't available for study one hundred years after the owner thought he could do a better job of taking care of his prized possession than a museum.

I also see that a person should be able to keep any fossil or artifact he finds/wants assuming it was collected on private property or was otherwise collected legally. If an institution wants it, it should offer compensation because collecting fossils is work. Museums do lose specimens (or lose the labels which prompts them to throw the fossils in the dumpster). There are specimens that went on loan in the 1930's and still haven't been returned. Some specimens are stolen out of museums and they're always inside jobs (not a "Mission Impossible" fossil collector break-in). Some museums throw out a lot of the specimens that are donated because they lack precise locality data.

It may be an eternal impasse because some collectors have been soured by their interactions with researchers and vice versa.

[silverphoenix]

I'll be out of town without internet until Sunday--I'll have to reply Monday. Keep it alive

[Harry Pristis]

Some people enjoy possessing items that they know others covet. They may be the same people who get upset when their donated items aren't immediately/ever on display.

You're right. A significant specimen can be a just a piece of turtle shell or a crocodile tooth if it is referrable to a taxon previously undocumented in a given fauna or it can be an additional representative of an uncommon taxon. Fossils of land mammals found in a marine bed are generally rare so anything identifiable is considered important. A mammal researcher would appreciate the donation of half a tooth or a bone end in that case, especially where more complete material is unlikely to surface.

Similar to your point, I can understand the argument that paleontologists should have access to any fossil they consider important (an "eminent domain" issue?) because the average person, lacking the proper facility to securely store it, might mishandle or lose that specimen There are many missing holotypes that were in the custody of the owner but were later lost somewhere among intervening generations so that it wasn't available for study one hundred years after the owner thought he could do a better job of taking care of his prized possession than a museum.

I also see that a person should be able to keep any fossil or artifact he finds/wants assuming it was collected on private property or was otherwise collected legally. If an institution wants it, it should offer compensation because collecting fossils is work. Museums do lose specimens (or lose the labels which prompts them to throw the fossils in the dumpster). There are specimens that went on loan in the 1930's and still haven't been returned. Some specimens are stolen out of museums and they're always inside jobs (not a "Mission Impossible" fossil collector break-in). Some museums throw out a lot of the specimens that are donated because they lack precise locality data.

It may be an eternal impasse because some collectors have been soured by their interactions with researchers and vice versa.

Nicely argued, 'siteseer'; however, you've alluded to a different imaginary tension - this one ostensibly between professional curatorship versus private curatorship. Such tension doesn't have much relevance these days except over type specimens, and ProPals control the options for describing type specimens.

For example, the SVP doesn't lobby for restrictive laws and regulations so its members can curate all the vertebrate fossils exposed on public lands - that is an impossible task. No, the SVP simply seeks control of collecting opportunities for ProPals. They want that control even if excluding amateur collectors means that significant fossils may be weathered to smithereens for want of eyes on the ground.

You can describe this tension between ProPals and amateur collectors as being about "the science" or "safe curatorship" or someone's sense of what's right. The nitty-gritty is that it's about the fossils and who gets 'em. ProPals want 'em; and, though they have small numbers, the ProPals have big institutions to back their play.

I believe that good fossils are the key to publication which is the key to career advancement for a ProPal.

Very few of us human beings are motivated for long by lofty idealism ("for the sake of knowledge" or "for science" or "for the children"). A ProPal career is not built on such ideals. It's built on the competition of ideas, and securing grants, and getting the fossils, being first to publish, and building a CV. The tension between ProPals and collectors is just another area of competition for ambitious ProPals.

I do see that you have acknowledged many of the things that go wrong in ProPal/collector interactions. It is not an unreasonable account.

[Bear]

A couple of points:

Firstly, this Internet thingie has changed everything everywhere, even on this issue. While it is true that much of the basis in this - as in many other - field has been established by academics and their papers, nowadays a bunch of those papers are 'published' here on the net rather than in peer reviewed publications. Yeah, I know that is controversial, but it is what is happening.

Secondly, historically speaking, in the US many new discoveries have been made and major contributions put forward by what are commonly termed 'garage tinkerers' or 'amateur scientists'. That, ladies and gentlemen, is us. This forum is not a bad place to 'publish' anything of value that you may discover. If we don't think it is that good, we will tell you that in no uncertain terms.

Thirdly:

..ProPals are human. They want all the fossils, just like I do..

Yep, that is the truth from where I see it. Nothing like a government - enforced monopoly.......to kick the black market in the ! Marijuana is still illegal in a lot of places in the US. That is why a dried weed is more valuable than its weight in gold - the US federal government's attempt to overturn the law of supply and demand. You ban surface collecting of fossils save by government sanctioned 'professionals' and you encourage large - scale criminal prospecting for same and the development of a black market to sell them.

The US federal government involvement in the great 'Sue' debacle made her sale price $11.5 million US, about $10 million more than was correct. 2 weeks ago a similar fossil failed to reach its minimum bid of $3.5 million US and was not sold at auction as a result. Why? No 'professional' or government involvement.

[Frank Menser]

I was thinking about this and I see a familiar pattern here. I thought about it and mentioned it to my wife - who as a Psychologist informed me that the concept in my head was not an origional one.

But anyhow, as I pondered about it it occurred to me that - like so many enterprises there three stages to the History of Paleontology.

The first was "The fight for Acceptance". The early pioneers faced the world with a new concept that was scorned or ridiculed by both the masses and the powers that be. They fought for credibility.

The second stage, "The Golden Era" is when the idea has gained enough credence that the practitioners are able to purse the enterprise with little or no interference. This is the stage of discovery and imagination. The most progress is made durring this period, as anyone with the imagination and drive to pursue it is open to "new ground".

The third stage is "Power". A central group gains the position of authority and influence. They begin to regulate the enterprise and set up rules, regulations. restrictions and procedures partly in an effort to improve the enterprise and partially to place it under the mantel of their control. This tends to have a stiffling influence.

It seems to me that we are entering that third stage here, as new laws restrict collecting and possesion of fossils and more and more new discoveries are only accepted if you have the right scientific credentials.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Frank Menser

[snaggle]

It is unethical for an uninvited anybody to pick through my unique orchid collection to study (if I had one). Or to take core samples from the chesnut tree in my yard (if I had one of those). I don't think the field deserves a "right" to obtaining fossil finds from either collectors or, an extension of this idea, landowners on whose property fossils are found. The communication issue, mentioned above, is vital for finding good working relationships between collector, landowner and scientist/researcher. With the communication and hopefully subsequent permission to borrow or collect, there must be integrity at the site, whether it be a museum, university lab or the collection site itself. The swagger needs to go. The university paleontology dept. is not at the top of the food, no, um, fossil chain. Hats off to all who have both the good communication and the integrity to live out the agreements.