[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Second Thoughts on Sue
Matt Wedel wrote:
> When I heard about the Field Museum getting Sue, my initial reaction
> was one of great relief and satisfaction.
> There are several things that worry me. One is that the statement,
> "You can't attach a dollar value to scientifically important
> specimens," is out the window. Now, we can debate about who said
> that, or would say it, or to what extent it was true, but the fact
> remains that a major American museum has set a seven-million-plus
> figure as the going rate on tyrannosaurs. That worries me for
> three reasons: first, that a "going rate" can be assessed for things
> like this, second, that that rate was so high, and third, that a
> museum set the precendent.
> Here's my point: museums, by and large, just can't afford to fork out
> that kind of money. I'm worried that an exceptional, heroic effort
> by the Field Museum and the other contributing interests will be
> taken by some to be business as usual.
> Also, I work in a museum, and we get enough crackpots trying to
> offload their worn sandstone "dinosaur bones" and concretion "eggs."
> I can just imagine the sort of crap that every museum in the country
> will probably have to put up with on a regular basis, now that people
> know that *museums* will pay millions.
I followed the Sue trial from overseas, remote Europe.
Well I personally think Matt made quite a point.
Another stuff for thinking:
If you had a budget of >8million$ and were asked to
choose: 'rescue' Sue or create a lot of reasonably paid paleontology
fellowship/postdoc/research positions, from which choice paleontology
as a science would benefit most.....?
Isn't there quite a discepancy between the commercial value of some
spectacular fossils and the professional future prospects of the
people who dedicate their life studying them?
Just a personal modest opinion from a non-professional