Here to debate the issue with me is Mark Graham, a professional fossil preparator who works at a major UK museum.  I hope this discussion will be enlightening and I’d like to try out a few more of these if this is a success.  Mark and I know each other well, and our positions on this issue are not so far apart.  Too often such framed debates are between people holding absolutely opposing views which I think tend to be dull to read or engage in, and leads to both sides just digging in.  Far more instructive is when there is a genuine debate to be had over conflicting evidence or stressing different areas of research in terms of importance, and a pair of colleagues who can be both simultaneously opposed and collegiate makes for a much nicer experience on all sides.  There is a bit of devil’s advocate being played here, so readers should not ascribe every idea laid down as being necessarily an opinion of the person voicing it.  As so, to the question, what is wrong with the sale of fossils? 

DH: I think I’ll start with a little introduction and try to cover what we both agree on and so be in a position to set that aside.  I think we are both able to agree strongly that the sale or auction (and even ownership) of illegally acquired fossils is a bad thing, and that people should not be party to the exploitation of the fossil resources and heritage of a country that specifically bans their collection, export and sale.  The Mongolian tyrannosaurs that have appeared in the U.S. and U.K. auction houses being a case in point.  Similarly, I think we are both happy with the fundamental idea of private ownership of fossils – I’ve said before that obviously small and unimportant specimens like sharks’ teeth and ammonites offer no damage to science, and can encourage interest and support of research and are to be supported, not banned.  Where we differ here then are things like the Diplodocus sold yesterday: found, collected, sold and owned legally, there is technically nothing wrong with this.  But it’s hard not to argue that it is scientifically important (it’s attributed to the little known Diplodocus longus species), and that there is arguably a cultural attachment to the U.S. public (it was taken from private lands in Wyoming) and that, in the words of the great Indiana Jones, it belongs in a museum. 

MG: Yes, there’s no argument that illegal collecting is reprehensible and we are discussing legitimate material which comes onto the market only here.  I’m not contesting the scientific importance of such specimens, because scientific knowledge is accrued incrementally and significant discoveries like the Diplodocus obviously have the potential to add to our understanding of these creatures and the environments in which they lived out their lives.  Where I think we differ is that I believe a substantial amount of the science, in some cases, can be gleaned without the specimen necessarily having to be kept in perpetuity by a museum or other accredited institution.  Essentially, I’m questioning why (in an era of electronic, high definition scanning and printing of ‘virtual’ specimens) this requirement remains.  As to ‘cultural attachment’, well these fossil remains represent the vestiges of a world that existed so far before the evolution of humans, (and when indeed the very continents bore little resemblance to those of today), that I can’t see where culture comes into the equation.  For me, legitimate cultural attachment is about materials that have been worked by man – not to fossils. 

DH: As to the data issue, for sure, we can collect large amounts of data these days with new technology and techniques, but there are two key problems.  Firstly, even if we get permission to scan something it can be massively expensive (it might cost as much to scan the thing as just buying).  Secondly, we can’t possibly get all the data we want.  We don’t yet have the technology to get details like microstructre of the bone and data like the geochemistry of the bones from non-invasive scans.  Similarly, the technology will inevitably advance and we can go back to existing fossils and collect ever more data from them when we have them in our collections, but not if they have disappeared into some private collection.  Certainly such scans would be a major step forward, but I don’t think they can be an absolute solution. 

With regards to cultural issues, I’m perhaps using ‘culture’ in an overly broad and incorrect sense, but certainly Mongolian dinosaurs are part of Mongolian history and British dinosaurs part of British history and it should be no surprise that people find a special interest in things from their own countries and have a special attachment to them.  Selling those off, legally or not, diminishes the collective heritage of the country in question.  The Chinese have a special attachment to the giant panda which is only currently alive in the wild in China, but while of course these animals do move abroad in zoos etc.,  no one questions that the Chinese can’t feel proud and attached to them, and can’t protect the animals individually and the species as a whole both for themselves and the world.  In short, the point is that I think there is, or can be, a strong connection between people and the fossils of their nation and that’s no more or less valid than connections to Neolithic art, wildlife or even geology. 

In both cases though, we’re heading to a point actually about the inherent data.  While obviously many researchers bemoan the loss of such fossils as ‘loss of scientific information’, it is actually wider than that.  Even dinosaur research seeps into other branches of science and into broader issues like technology and general public interest, so the loss is more than about just ‘we can’t see this specimen and we’d like to’.  In that context, should say a government step in to purchase key specimens when sold legally, as they would for say a famous painting or collection of letters and notes of a noted author? 

MG: I did say that electronic data can be gleaned ‘in some cases’ and obviously, as a professional fossil preparator I’m not for the wholesale replacement of data gathered from real fossils.  Modern techniques like scanning enhance the science and could, I argue, provide a viable alternative where outright scientific ownership may not be possible.  I know for example of one current case in the USA where the resin cast of a complete articulated dinosaur skeleton has been photographed and 3D scanned to produce a virtual image from which research is to be undertaken.  The original fossil remains in the private ownership of the collector.  So clearly it is sometimes feasible to undertake science without direct access to the actual fossil, but clearly not yet to provide answers to all the many aspects involved in researching material, as you rightly point out.  Remember that we are considering the relatively few (but nevertheless high profile) cases where the asking price for the fossil is a barrier to institutional acquisition. 

As to the cultural issue, we in the UK were in the forefront of the science and I believe that our stance on the collecting and ownership of fossils found in the UK serves as a good template.  We are not mired in heavy-handed legislation and effectively, police ourselves with the minimum of intervention (in the form of voluntary codes of practice).  While the system is far from fool-proof, it allows scope for casual enthusiasts to serious collectors to engage in palaeontology and plenty of great material filters through to museums from these sources.  I’m rather glad that our ‘culture’ is one of openness.  That said though, I do recognise that in some countries the unfettered collecting (some would say ransacking) of fossils has led to the loss of a great deal of important material.  So probably there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution. 

Intuitively, I am wary of solutions involving government intervention and I would not like to see our politicians directly involved in decision making over scientifically important acquisitions.  I would prefer to see palaeontology organised and funded so that material like the 40% genuine fossil bone on the Diplodocus, can be scanned or otherwise recorded to facilitate research where there is a likelihood that the specimen will be sold privately.  Many private fossil collectors will donate or will their specimens to museums anyway, so much of the so-called ‘lost’ material eventually find its way to institutions. 

Facebook Twitter Pinterest The skeleton of a Tarbosaurus bataar that was up for auction in the U.S. The auction was stopped and the material confiscated and returned to Mongolia, from where it had been illegally excavated and exported.  Photograph: Handout ./Reuters/REUTERS

DH: I wasn’t really suggesting government intervention in the sense of legislation or direct meddling in a given sale, but I do think that governments would typically stump up to keep important artistic artefacts in the county, or protect endangered wildlife in a way that rarely seems to happen in many places.  It’s also interesting to note that one also sees some cases where people can apparently treat or think of fossils in a very different way to other such artefacts or aspects of life.  I am aware of at least one example where apparently a notable celeb both contributes greatly to funds for wildlife protection and conservation, but also has attempted to purchase fossils of dubious provenance.  It seems contradictory to me to be happy to support protection of one aspect of the natural world while actively exploiting another.  This of course perhaps speaks in part from a lack of appreciation of fossils by others, and links to my earlier point about attachment (let’s face it, I’m likely overly attached to them given my job and interests), but it is indicative that perhaps better education of the public as to the issues at hand may be relevant. 

Finally I agree that in general UK practices are actually pretty good and balance between facilitating private ownership, collections, science, museum, public interest and private enterprise interests are actually rather well done.  Even so, I’d prefer to see more protection generally of important sites, and more action where there are clear problems (the U.K., U.S. and others don’t have any laws about stopping sales of material that is known to have been collected illegally if that was done abroad).  Clearly the central point here about intervention or protection of what are currently legally acquired material is complex and awkward, but there is more to think about that merely palaeontological research and private ownership, which seems to be how much of it is framed. 

To sum up, I think the point I took was from the brief statement of the Diplodocus sale by the auctioneer that appeared in various media sources.  He noted how it would appeal to the wealthy and suggested that buyers would include sheiks, theme parks, and the like, but never even mentioned the possibility of a museum.  While taking a small soundbite (even in context) is not the best line of argument, it does bring home that while for most people the idea of a dinosaur is perhaps intimately linked with a trip to a museum and scientific research, for those involved in the trade, it may be the last thing on their minds, when it is that very research and display to the public that has made them a popular and valuable commodity in the first place. 

MG: Yes, safeguarding the material must be the prime concern and if governments can help financially but at arm’s length, great.  There aren’t many other objects which can be dug up from the ground and instil such a sense of awe, which perhaps explains some peoples’ attachment to fossils. 

To be fair to the auctioneers, I did read a quote from them prior to the sale that the Natural History Museum had ruled itself out as a potential buyer, which implies that there had been dialogue. 

DH: that’s an interesting final point, though of course doesn’t mean that other museums could not have bid, or even been mentioned.  Still, it’s an encouraging end that at least there may have been some discussion.  As you note, there are certainly plenty of ‘good’ collectors and dealers who do offer material to museums first, at a discount, or even donate them, and that is very much to be encouraged, hopefully a few more will continue this trend and help ensure more material is available for scientific research and for the public to enjoy.