Scientific integrity

The battle between the paleontologists Marsh and Cope, made me think about the morality and justice to any given credit behind a discovery or exploration. Who takes the credit for it?

It made me disbelief and questions the names on science after reading how this scientists played with the funding dates of publications, steal specimens and credit of new discoveries, and employed assistance to do the work for them. More over, even the strategy made by cope to get the publication printed first by buying and controlling part of the American Natural journal was also kind of concerning.

I found a report on Wikipedia from 2007 about scientific integrity , which made me question science even more:

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Integrity_in_Policymaking )

"Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science" is the title of a report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists in February, 2004. The report was the culmination of an investigation of the Bush administration's objectivity in science, and ultimately a criticism thereof. (After it was published, the report's existence was fairly well-publicized by the United States' mass media.)

"Suppression and distortion of research findings"

Rice, Powell, Bush, and Rumsfeld

A central thesis of the report, according to the Executive Summary (on page 2 of the text), was that the Bush administration had behaved in ways considered to be consistent with the following three situations.

1. Epidemic altering and concealing of scientific information by senior officials in various federal agencies

2. Active censorship of scientific information that the administration considered threatening to its own philosophies

Restriction of the ability of government-supported scientists to freely communicate scientific ideas related to "sensitive" issues

"An unprecedented pattern of behavior"

In "Part III", the text of the report posits that the aforementioned activities are unprecedented in the history of the United States. The report lists the following persons and organization who had supposedly acted or made statements to support this claim.

This list is sorted first by category, then by the order in which the persons or organizations are mentioned in the report.

3. Organization

REP America

4. Persons

Ruckelshaus, William

Train, Russell

Panofsky, Dr. Wolfgang H. K.

Goldberger, Dr. Marvin

Scarlett, Dr. Margaret

Kennedy, Donald

Bromley, Dr. D. Allan

Branscomb, Professor Lewis M.

Goldman, Dr. Lynn

The report's table of contents

The following is a duplication of the report's table of contents.

5. Executive summary

6. Part I: Suppression and distortion of research findings at federal agencies

Distorting and suppressing climate change research

Censoring information on air quality

Mercury emissions from power plants

Addressing multiple air pollutants

Distorting scientific knowledge on reproductive health issues

Abstinence-only education

HIV/AIDS

Breast cancer

Suppressing analysis on airborne bacteria

Misrepresenting evidence on Iraq's aluminum tubes

Manipulation of science regarding the endangered species act

Missouri River

Manipulating the scientific process on forest management

OMB rulemaking on "peer review"

7. Part II: Undermining the quality and integrity of the appointment process

Industry influence on lead poisoning prevention panel

Political litmus tests on workplace safety panel

Non-scientist in senior advisory role to the President

Underqualified candidates in health advisory roles

The FDA's Reproductive Health Advisory Committee

Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS

Litmus tests for scientific appointees

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Army Science Board

Dismissal of nuclear weapons and arms control panels

National Nuclear Security Administration panel

Arms control panel

8. Part III: An unprecedented pattern of behavior

Disseminating research from federal agencies

Irregularities in appointments to scientific advisory panels

9. Conclusions and recommendations: What's at stake

Restoring scientific integrity to federal policy making

10. Appendices

EPA memo on climate section of the Report on the Environment

USDA "sensitive issue" list

Reading Response - Preston, 13 April 2010

In the "Dinsosaur Gold Rush" chapter, I was struck by the similarities between the Museum leaving the fictive brontosaurus skull on a reconstructed apatosaurus skeleton and the parallel evolutionary timelines in the Horses exhibition from last week's LaTour reading. While unintentional, the effect is more or less the same - something of a concession to, and an acceptance of, different fact-events through the history of paleontology. Assembling prehistoric skeletons is a daunting task, and I can imagine that it is all too easy to speculate in the wrong direction - after all, all paleontology is really just highly refined deductive speculation - and in the case of the brontosaur/apatosaur in the museum, science had an idea that was the best that could be collectively agreed upon for a time, which was rectified at a later point when new circumstances emerged and new information was available. This is the same with the 19th-Century and contemporary horse evolution timelines in the LaTour article. What both of these exhibits highlight, for me, is that scientific fact is very often a product of circumstance - for example, the conditions in the realm of American vertebrate paleontology that rebuffed challenges to the use of the "wrong" skull for Brown's [?] apatosaur skeleton.

Flexible Science

some fossils aren't whole at all!  they are made up of thousands of fragments.  how do they know how they all go together?  (click the pic to see what i mean)

new scientific discoveries lead to reformulations of theories...

I really enjoyed this section on dinosaur fossil hunting and the stories behind these discoveries. Specifically, the battle between Marsh and Cope for fossils reminded me of so many other similar stories within the science world, specifically Sputnik and the race between the Russians and the Americans to reach outer space. It’s interesting that discoveries are only motivated by competition for fame and not the actual discovery itself. Marsh and Cope seemed more concerned with trying to sabotage each other’s work than the actual intrigue behind this type of archaeological work. This is true in lots of science labs where self-preservation over shadows the work itself. Honestly, collaboration would probably speed up scientific discovery if people stopped creating competition amongst each other.
The other aspect of this section that I really liked was the ways in which the Museum completed skeletons that had missing parts. Until now, I was aware of the fact that some parts of the skeleton are artificially created to make it appear complete, but the transfer of parts from one skeleton and adding it to another seems strange. Also, at this time, dinosaur fossils were new discoveries and not much was known about their anatomy, so in response, many assumptions were made about the proper bone structure for any particular dinosaur, like the confusion surrounding the skull of the Brontosaurus.

Bones 4/13

One thing about the Preston reading that particularly impressed itself on me was how much he favors the 'history of science' perspective brought up by Latour. While Preston does include information about our current scientific view of the world, his focus is much more on the viewpoints and practices of the past, how these have changed over time, and how these changes are displayed at the Museum. It seems to me a strange, slightly comic project--a history of history--and it manifests most vividly in Preston's account of the Brontosaurus on display at the museum, with an 'incorrect' head. To some, this would be a fallacy (although a necessary one--the model could collapse if the head was replaced); to Preston, this is a fascinating artifact that carries with it the colorful history of the museum.

Sam

Reading for 4/12

For as much crap as I've given Dinosaurs in The Attic for being uncritical of the museums practices, I have to admit that Douglas J. Preston does a really good job at showing how muddled the museum often is. It seems at times as though the museum is a large playground for wealthy investors, scientists, and intellectuals all vying for various objects and agendas. I think this is interesting when you apply the Teddy Bear Patriarchy theme, especially with the incessant competition between the scientists to find and claim dinosaurs. Also the entire way that men like Sternberg are framed is in a similar vein to the Roosevelt adventurer. I think this is really blatant in this particular reading, which shows how chaotic, bureaucratic, and confusing the dinosaur rush was.

Something else I want to bring up is how much I don't know about dinosaurs or paleontology. I was actually surprised by how much I've taken for granted in terms of not caring or having any enthusiasm about really looking at the dinosaurs at the museum. Like Mario I hadn't really thought about all the biological and geological componants to bones. Not that these ideas were new or surprising to me, but rather I just never really thought about how much a bone can tell us. I also wondered about how palenontologists know how to put skeletons together, which made me think about last weeks reading and the example of the horses. I cant remember if they have this at the museum, but it would be really interesting to see all the various changes that have happened to dinosaur bodily structures.

Mario Cedeño Response 4/12

The American Museum of Natural History is very well known today for its vast and numerous dinosaur bone collection, and as Douglas J. Preston illustrates, how the bones were gathered and collected and how they ended up in the museum can be complex. The stories of how the bones were collected and by who can be very interesting, as with the stories of Marsh and Cope racing to out due each other to find the most dinosaur bones, and with Sternberg and the mummified duck-billed dinosaur he and his sons discovered in Wyoming. Reading these stories I was struck by how much of a history that objects in the museum have and how that history is usually not presented with the object in the museum display. I think learning about the unique history of the museum objects will add to the object's appeal and lure instead of museumgoers simply looking at an object without knowing its history.
In chapter ten titled “A Library of Bones” I found it interesting the great amount of information that can be gathered from studying bones. When combining the information that can be gathered from bones with other scientific disciplines such as geology and astronomy, scientists can discover things such as animal’s diet, habitat, location, muscular structure, age, and overall information about entire ecosystems and how the world was in the age of dinosaurs. How the museum cleans and stores its bones was also interesting. The fact that live beetles are used to eat the flesh and muscle off the bones of dead animals in the museum seems very lo-tech in the increasingly high-tech museum. Overall, Preston proves that bones are an integral part of the American Museum of Natural History.

Reading 4/13 (Dinosaurs in the Attic)

In the Preface, on various occasions, Preston states that his book is not so much a book as a "collection of stories, histories, and anecdotes," and he focus more on the individuals than on collections. When looking at objects and collections, it is important to look at the people collecting them, and their reasoning in doing so. This is evident in "The Great Dinosaur 'Gold Rush'" chapter where Preston describes how and why certain paleontologists collected fossils. For example, Barnum Brown's desire to collect was present at a young age, collecting fossil shells in Kansas, and that curiosity followed him into adulthood and into the American Museum of Natural History. Or, Othniel C. Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope whose reason to collect fossils seemed to stem from a hatred of the other. Preston, as far as I could tell, through his writing, is trying "display" the individuals whose life work is on display in the museum, giving these paleontologists some pubic attention. In the preface, Preston also mentions how he has chosen to write about certain individuals who he feels deserve attention (Preston's entire book has no mention of Margaret Mead), and whose lives are just as interesting as the objects that they have found. Chapter Six gives attention the the people behind the objects.

Despite all the unnecessary yet interesting facts about the various paleontologists and collectors mentioned, Preston still manages to convey the importance of the objects that were found, bones and fossils. Most of the knowledge we have of prehistoric environments is the result of careful studying of bones, teeth, and their placement when found. Much of the knowledge we have about extinct mammals and dinosaurs was extracted from studying bones and teeth, revealing an animal's age, diet, predators, movement, etc. Bones, along with other sceintific knowledge, allow scientists to piece together the past,sometimes inaccurately, as was the case with Jumbo and the Warren Mastodon's exaggerated mounts.


138, 131, 121,
65, 61, 75, x
Preface, chapter 6, ch. 10