Tyrannoethics

"Money beats soul, every time" -Jim Morrison. "Resist or perish" -A. C. Crispin. The private ownership of dinosaur skeletons is an unethical tide that must be reversed; our science needs society's active protection against this deprivation of data.

In the wake of the November 19^th Bonhams auction of dinosaur fossils, and as the fate of those stunning specimens are decided mostly by nonscientists, I elaborate here on why the auction of vertebrate fossils is unethical. I follow as a framework the ethics guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), in particular Sections 4 and 6 of Article 12 .

Section 4. Deposition of fossil specimens
Scientifically significant fossil vertebrate specimens, along with ancillary data, should be curated and accessioned in the collections of repositories charged in perpetuity with conserving fossil vertebrates for scientific study and education (e.g., accredited museums, universities, colleges and other educational institutions).

The decision to put the specimens on auction puts fossils in a perilous position, where they may be purchased by anyone is an action that is in violation of this section. The high prices of the fossils puts them out of the reach of museums and toward, if not into, the grasp of private interests. In the time preceding an auction, the specimens are not curated into a legitimate repository, which is also in violation of this section. The true value of a dinosaur skeleton is not monetary; its value is really in its capacity as a test - and an expansion - of previous knowledge, which is what the deposition section is intended to protect.

Section 6. Commercial sale or trade
The barter, sale or purchase of scientifically significant vertebrate fossils is not condoned, unless it brings them into, or keeps them within, a public trust. Any other trade or commerce in scientifically significant vertebrate fossils is inconsistent with the foregoing, in that it deprives both the public and professionals of important specimens, which are part of our natural heritage.

The decision to auction a fossil for millions of dollars to private interests is in violation of this section. The arrangement of such a sale is an action taken against the interests of the public trust, science and education. Also, the decision to participate in the promotion of such a sale, such as giving interviews of endorsement and writing copy for the corresponding catalog, contravenes this ethic.

Given these ethical guidelines, it is reasonable to assume that a private individual who buys dinosaur fossils really values possession for its own sake, not science or the scientific knowledge that could be gained from a specimen. A private collection is a hoard, which is not equivalent to a museum or university collection, where fossils are catalogued and conserved, and access to researchers is assured. Science requires those standards for reproducibility of observations, for science is nothing if it is deprived of the ability to test knowledge claims.

Society has to be reminded that scientific knowledge is more important than possessing an expensive toy. A paleontologist cannot publish an observation of a privately owned fossil without violating the ethics of the field. Knowing this, fossil dealers and the collectors who pay huge amounts of money for the fossils, must have a complete indifference or contempt for science. I don’t see any way around that inference - the deprivating effect of the exchange upon science speaks for itself.

For example, the T. rex specimen nicknamed Samson was auctioned into the inky night of a private collection. Even if the owner rolled out a red carpet for me and slapped a set of digital calipers in my hands, I cannot publish my observations in the scientific literature because the specimen is not in a public trust that has external accountability. Therefore, section 6 is a reasonable restriction that ensures the self-correcting process of science through access to specimens, and rightly delegitimates the private ownership of fossils.

One serious cost that the market and private ownership of expensive dinosaur fossils brings with it is the decay of the view of museums as the only legitimate and ennobling repositories for irreplaceable objects. Dealers especially (I think more than collectors) require that narrative to validate their actions and the prices they ask for. Sections 4 and 6 are important reminders that museums are institutions that operate for the good of society, not for the gratification of the few who, for thousands or millions of dollars, would deprive civilization of a deeper understanding of Nature and our place in it.