|
|
|
Ethics Q&A: Acquisitions 2
|
May 2000
Every year a number of commercial mineral and fossil fairs are held in different parts of the world. Dealers and private collectors attend them.
We know that some specimens which turn up at these events were undoubtedly smuggled out of their country of origin. In some cases they were dug up in ways which irretrievably destroy contextual evidence.
We unreservedly condemn such practices. Is there not, however, a valid argument for museum palaeontologists at least to attend these fairs, if not to buy at them for their museums?
Surely it is preferable for material that may be unique to science to enter a public collection where it can be the subject of proper scientific research, rather than for museums to turn their backs and allow it to disappear into the cabinets of private collectors. What are your views?
A common ethical question in all areas of human activity is whether or not ends should justify means. Buying and working with illicit specimens may advance your particular branch of investigation in the short term. But at what cost?
Liaoning is an area of China uniquely valuable for the rich palaeontological evidence it holds. An article in the national press told the story of how enterprising farmers in Liaoning learnt to exploit a lucrative Western market in fossils.
Not only did they remove from context large numbers of 'décor fossils' for sale, but they started to 'create' specimens to meet demand. They developed a feel for what fossil trophy hunters craved and assembled a fake 'missing link' between dinosaurs and birds. It was smuggled out of China, sold at a commercial mineral and fossil fair and duped some of the otherwise reputable popular science publishing community.
In this case, the private museum and the scientists involved thought they were working for the advancement of science. Seduced by the apparent significance of the specimen, they paid scant regard to the legitimacy of the item's extraction, its export or sale.
Through its association with the illicit trade in natural history specimens and the circulation of scientifically misleading 'doctored' or fake items which the trade generates, one internationally regarded publication paid a heavy price in loss of public credibility and damage to its reputation.
Museums similarly tainted compromise public confidence both in the moral integrity of the museum and the material evidence it presents. There may, perhaps, be some validity in the argument that museum personnel should monitor what goes on at and what passes through commercial fossil fairs where illicit or illegal items are known to circulate. Buying at such events is, however, imprudent at the least and, in the opinion of many, irresponsible.
In cases like this it is well to remember that it isn't only science that can be ripped off by supporting a trade that decontextualises an irreplaceable cultural resource. The Chinese worker who prises the specimen from the rock face may be paid as little as $10 for an item that will fetch $10, 000 in the West.
When the fossils run out, that community has been robbed in more ways than one. And it is the end-buyer who is the main robber. That is not a role that any right thinking curator should contemplate.
^ TOP
|
|
|
