Laelaps

Over the past several months many people (myself included) have been anxiously awaiting the ruling of the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology ethics committee on the controversy informally known as Aetogate, and on May 23 the SVP committee released their decision (if you need to catch up, see Mike Taylor's site and my posts here, here, here, here, and here). The ruling was a mixed bag, although it does have some broader implications for how paleontologists conduct research and publish their work. (You can see the documents released by the committee, including recommendations as to "best practices," here.)

Kevin Padian has the best quote involving the findings of the SVP group;

There's something for everyone to like - and dislike - about the statement by the Ethics Education Committee.

I'm glad that the SVP has weighed in and I certainly welcome their decision. Those looking for one particular side to be damned or exonerated are going to be disappointed by the findings, but there are much more important problems involved than identifying which party acted improperly. As has been said elsewhere, we're in a time when dissertations and other work by students entering the field of paleontology are becoming more widely available and this change creates some new challenges. How widely will open-access theses be read? Should a student be wary of sending out their thesis before their findings are "properly" published elsewhere? What are the responsibilities of institutions that generate grey literature in peer-reviewing work? These are just a few of the larger issues involved in this case.

There is one area in which I unapologetically disagree with the SVP decision, however. The ruling cited that discussions of the controversy on the internet only served to inflame and complicate the issue. As someone who has contributed to these activities I feel that it is necessary to stand up for myself. The inquiries into the potential misconduct of Spencer Lucas and others by the DCA were biased and unfair and the coverage of the story on the internet prevented the controversy from quietly slipping away or being forgotten. It was recognized from the beginning that the results of this case would have the potential to change various aspects of the way professional paleontologists carry out their work and therefore it should have gotten all the attention it was due as the events of the case unfolded.

There is one detail that still bothers me, however. Even though the case was primarily concerned with what has occurred in New Mexico there was also an international aspect to it. According to the Nature article that brought the controversy to everyone's attention Jerzy Dzik of the Palaeobiology Institute at the University of Warsaw had e-mailed Lucas about publishing on the aetosaur specimens held by the institute in the NMMNHS Bulletin. Did Dzik decide not to pursue the matter? I don't want to open the can of worms all over again or send more accusations flying, but I am concerned that the international aspect of this controversy has seemingly slipped into the background. This issue is important as it involves the permission of visiting scientists to view collections and publish data based upon those collections, another aspect of the controversy that has important implications for ethical conduct in paleontology.