I finally got around to reading Jacque's note and the brief article in 'The New Scientist.' Bernard's Grand Plan is obviously laudable, but after 20 years' exposure to the Bigwigs in paleoanthropology, I am afraid that Tim White's comments are a portent of things to come. He says, "Relax. Well-done analytical studies are worth the wait." It's easy to be smug when you've got the fossils, but how long is it reasonable to wait? When, for instance, can we expect "well-done analytical studies" of the A. anamensis or Ardipithecus material, which has been languishing for years in a Berkeley lab?
Ken Antanaitis-Jacobs
To use a polite term, the “over-protectiveness” exhibited by various workers, for “their” bones and/or stones has been a characteristic of what is now called palaeoanthropology (sensu lato) since its earliest beginnings. The stories abound, some quite funny and/or utterly ridiculous, and, others, rather sad and, even tragic, if one takes into consideration the negative impacts they have had on the so-called advancement of science and the persons involved. But, really, what is there to expect – then and now -- when one mixes together human nature at work with the strange and undeniable attraction or fascination many have for its (pre)historical antecedents.
This said, I really believe that the “Bigwigs”, as you call them, will shortly (admittedly, a relative term) find themselves walking on increasingly thin ice – this being a Spring-that-doesn’t-seem-to-come induced metaphor. This is likely to be caused by the changing winds of the Web that, if properly read, could well be used to bring about a much needed surge in the “democratization” of palaeoanthropological and closely associated sister sciences. Such signals have already been picked up by other, “harder” and, obviously more dynamic and creative disciplines, e.g., physics, where priority is increasingly placed on the need to (making use of the growing capabilities of the Web) facilitate and accelerate stimulating exchange of potentially critical and seminal information. A growing movement which, by the way, even addresses the need to “revamp” the good old, traditional “peer review process” that is still greatly (not to say “religiously” and, therefore, uncritically and blindly) adhered to by most if not all the present scientific publications.
In this regard, it should be mentioned that there has been, out there, in the cyber world, a number of exploratory initiatives whose clearly stated goals are to seek and identify ways -- by making intelligent and, again, creative use of the new capabilities provided by the Web – to break the growing scientific communication logjam. One prominent example of how to approach some of the problems we are all concerned with is that of the relatively recent, very well endowed “Budapest Open Access Initiative” (
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ ). While this, and a number of other similar “initiatives” do not necessarily address the main issue you have raised, they are nonetheless good indicators of a number of important changes that are already affecting our views on how to deal with scientific communication in general, in the light of and with the help of the new technological realities.
To date, most if not all such “initiatives” have been primarily concerned with opening up or creating free access to a scientific publication and dissemination system that is in large part under the control of large conglomerates whose interests in science have, at the very least, over the years, been heavily tainted by other considerations. Primarily financial, these can only profit from (in fact, encourage) the kind of status quo that is also cultivated by your “Bigwigs”, in many if not most disciplines.
I think that the initiatives mentioned or alluded to above (and I would include, in there, the recent upsurge in “onlining” on the part of many traditional journals and the appearance on the Web of actual E-Journals) could well force the self serving “isolationist” and “protectiveness” issues you are concerned about, in the context of Palaeoanthropology.
And if the PALANTH “launcher” (me) can finally get off its (my) pad, I think the Journal will have a chance to play a role in those definitely interesting changing times.
Jacques Cinq-Mars
