Ida: The Legend Continues

i-33cfa80bd8e9fb2c2b62f753459fef80-darwinius-ida-skeleton.jpg


The exceptionally preserved skeleton of Darwinius, known popularly as "Ida." From PLoS One.


Even though it has been about a month since Darwinius (or "Ida", if you like) hit the public scene there is still plenty to talk about. From uncertain evolutionary relationships to the interaction between scientists and the media, this controversy has given us plenty to discuss. One of the most worrying aspects of this entire ordeal, however, has been the prospect that media companies influenced the scientific study of Ida.

As Earle Holland wrote on the Ohio State University On Research... blog, the tight relationship between the scientists describing Darwinius and the companies involved in promoting the fossil (Atlantic Productions, History Channel, BBC, Little Brown, &c.) created competing interests that, contrary to the policies of PLoS One, were not reported. The relationship of the scientists to those companies should have been cleared up in the competing interests section of the paper. This omission is in the process of being corrected. According to an update Carl Zimmer posted yesterday on his blog, a temporary statement has been put up and will be followed by a formal correction. It states;

The authors wish to declare, for the avoidance of any misunderstanding concerning competing interests, that a production company (Atlantic Productions), several television channels (History Channel, BBC1, ZDF, NRK) and a book publisher (Little Brown and co) were involved in discussions regarding this paper in advance of publication. However, to clarify, none of the authors received any financial benefit from any of these associations and these organizations had no influence over the publication of this paper or the science contained within it. The Natural History museum in Oslo will receive some royalty from sales of the book, but no revenue accrues to any of the scientists. In addition, the Natural History Museum of Oslo purchased the fossil that is examined in this paper, however, this purchase in no way influenced the publication of this paper or the science contained within it, and in no way benefited the individual authors.

I look forward to seeing the formal correction, but this statement does not address one of my primary concerns. On May 21 the Australian ran a story in which it revealed that at least one of the authors of the PLoS One paper was not happy with all the media involvement. According to the article, paleontologist Philip Gingerich had told the Wall Street Journal that;

There was a TV company involved and time pressure. We've been pushed to finish the study. It's not how I like to do science.

If this is accurate then the media companies were not only engaged in discussions with scientists about the fossil, but actively pushed the authors to finish the study. As documented in one of Carl Zimmer's earlier posts there was a definite rush to have the paper completed between its May 12th acceptance date and the May 19th press conference, but what about before that? Last month Adam Rutherford mentioned that the media blitz promoting the fossil was already in place before the scientific paper was submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, putting the scientists and PLoS One under quite a time crunch.

Given the comments made by Gingerich, Rutherford, and others, I think there are good reasons to believe that the media companies influenced the study of Ida. To what extent this influence was manifested, I cannot say, but it seems that, at the very least, the media companies put pressure on the scientists to rush their research. This may have even precluded the authors from submitting the paper to different journals. While Jorn Hurum has stated that PLoS One was the natural choice for the paper, the Australian reports that Gingerich was hoping that the paper would go to Science or Nature, journals that have much longer peer-review processes. (Not that either journal would necessarily be likely to bite given the attachment of the paper to Atlantic Productions, &c.) Is it possible that PLoS One was chosen not only for being open access, but also because of the quick turnaround the paper would require to appear by the date set for Ida's unveiling?

Given that PLoS One has been the party that has primarily been responding to issues about the paper, however, we might never know to what extent the media companies influenced the study of Ida. Hurum appears to have tightly coordinated his appearances with Atlantic Productions and the other authors have been all but silent. Perhaps they are not legally allowed to speak about what went on behind the scenes, and I doubt that the media companies would admit to rushing the scientists.

Indeed, while Darwinius was published in an open-access journal, at least some of the media companies involved exerted an extraordinary amount of control over Ida. The fossil was a brand, something to be promoted like a new album or blockbuster movie, and by keeping journalists and scientists in the dark Atlantic Productions, &c. would be able to ensure Ida got favorable coverage. (It's akin to when a movie studio hypes an expensive movie but does not screen it for critics. If you are worried about criticism, then don't let the critics see it until everyone else does.) This was not "open" science, but "science held hostage."

More like this

The exceptionally preserved skeleton of Darwinius, known popularly as "Ida." From PLoS One. Last month an international team of paleontologists lifted the veil on one of the most spectacular fossils ever discovered; a 47-million-year-old primate they named Darwinius masillae. It was a major…
A restoration of the extinct adapid Darwinius, known popularly as "Ida." From PLoS One. . So the big day is finally here. "Ida", a 47-million-year-old primate skeleton from Messel, Germany has finally been unveiled on PLoS One and in a flurry of press releases, book announcements, and general…
Over at his blog for the Office of Research Communications at Ohio State University, Earle Holland provides more back stage insight on the media strategy surrounding the fossil Darwinius: Prior to the press conference, only a handful of select reporters got an advance look at the scientific paper,…
The exceptionally preserved skeleton of Darwinius, known popularly as "Ida." From PLoS One. Almost ten months ago an international team of researchers introduced the world to an exquisitely-preserved primate from the 47 million year old oil shales of Messel, Germany. Dubbed Darwinius masillae,…

I have to wonder about this. I understand that plate A is spectacular and all, but plate B was described and/or mentioned in at least three publications prior to this. It is not exactly new. The way it is being portrayed way overinflates it's importance, the claims being made don't have a lot of strong support (from say a phylogeny). The whole thing is perplexing.

By afarensis, FCD (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

I joked with my daughter that if I ever got pegged for one of those I would go to a bookstore, buy a medical dictionary and read it out loud! I would take this one, too.

This thing looks like Brown Jenkins. Iä Shub-Niggurath!

Ida thought people would be smarter than this. Ida bin wrong....

In the first reports of the announcement in the Guardian, James Randerson's web report of 19th May included the following:

"The paper's scientific reviewers asked that they tone down their original claims that the fossil was on the human evolutionary line.

One of those reviewers, Professor John Fleagle at Stony Brook University in New York state said that would be a judgment for the scientific community. "That will be sorted out or at least debated extensively in the coming years once the paper is published," he said."

The second paragraph didn't appear in the newspaper article dated 20 May. Whether the other anonymous reviewers had raised the same concern is unclear, but it really does suggest that the book, documentaries and press coverage were based on speculation that was pulled from the paper as published, but went ahead anyway.

It still seems strange that they put such emphasis on the claim that the new phylogeny had been confirmed, when it could have been an exciting cliffhanger to say that "provisional results suggest" and that full research is in progress, to be published in about a year.

By dave souza (not verified) on 12 Jun 2009 #permalink