RE: paleonet Head of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum

["Sloan, Benjamin J" <sloanbj@xxxxxxxxxx>]

You'd sure get my vote, if I had one.  I especially like your ideas about
having roving museum staff to point out errors in captions to the
unsuspecting Public!  The NMH could use a lot of work in this area.

-B


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John V Jackson [mailto:jjackson@interalpha.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 11:37 AM
> To: paleonet@ucmp1.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: paleonet Head of Palaeontology, The Natural 
> History Museum
> 
> 
> The NHM London are advertising for a new Head of 
> Palaeontology: "...to be a
> talented palaeontologist who will thrive in a challenging scientific
> leadership role, with an international reputation and able to 
> use their
> skills to develop palaeontology as a discipline and integrate 
> its work with
> other life and earth sciences."
> 
> I am thinking of applying for this position, but before submitting my
> application would like to run the essence of it past some of my fellow
> palaeoers...
> 
> It is as safe to claim to be a talented palaeontologist, as a talented
> futurologist of the next millenium but one; you don't expect 
> to be proved
> conclusively wrong.  Indeed, a better criterion would be the 
> ability to
> thrive in a challenging scientific leadership role since 
> appearing to be
> sound is as much as one could hope for.  If 'challenging' 
> refers to the
> intensity of the arguments, 'scientific' means one follows Popperian
> principles, and 'leadership' implies few people are ahead of 
> you in their
> degree of belief in the cause, then I should be ok; as to 
> reputation, if I
> have one, I'm sure it's international.
> 
> But the development and integration of the science and the 
> museum are the
> important things...
> 
> A number of major challenges confront the holder of this post:
> 
> The first is what every generation of palaeontologists has to 
> face: having
> to explain to the public, that "...we've got it all 
> absolutely wrong up to
> now, but we really are sure we've got it right this time".  This time
> though, the issues are rather serious.
> 
> Strategy must come first:  are we going to bluff our way 
> through the next
> generation of developments, or be the first to jump on all 
> the bandwagons at
> once?
> 
> Of course the former line has always been the option of 
> choice, and I need
> hardly mention the stalwart phrases that have been so 
> reliable in the past.
> However there are three new problems with this approach:
> 
> First, genomics is progressing at such a rate that all sorts 
> of embarassing
> discoveries might emerge at any moment, from sources beyond 
> our control.
> 
> Second, the principles of thought are being implemented on 
> computers at an
> ever accelerating rate.  This means that not only are they 
> becoming well
> understood, and if anyone analyses ours, we're going to need 
> to be confident
> in our justifications, but that some undergraduate computer 
> scientist might
> do a study of our field as a semester project, and draw different
> conclusions.  The old ploy of explaining the differences by 
> claiming our
> years of experience might be difficult if he says "It's all 
> right, I've got
> all info on all vertebrate types (distributional, temporal, 
> structural,
> behavioural, chemical, genomic etc) represented on computer, 
> along with a
> variety of cladistic programs, all palaeo maps and climatic 
> information, and
> of course all under the control of SROPRACT 6.3 [the Standard Rules Of
> Pattern Recognition And Creative Thought package]".
> 
> This brings us to the third problem: that although people's brains are
> getting smaller all the time, they are getting more academic 
> too.  How long
> will it be before most of the world is a gradaute?  By then, 
> the e-net will
> have removed most of our control over publishing, and we may 
> no longer be
> able to rely on our challengers being ignorant in any useful area; the
> computers will in any case be giving them the answer to any 
> question they
> need to know before they've even thought of it.
> 
> The world is developing x-ray eyes, but good timing may save 
> us.  It doesn't
> matter if all that happens, so long as we're ready when it 
> does.  We may not
> need to rearrange any foundations in the next generation in 
> most areas so
> long as we keep an eye on developments in all the information 
> sciences.
> 
> Are there any loose bits "hanging off" our accepted dogmas 
> that the majority
> of undergraduates could see through even without 
> fifth-generation computing
> power?
> 
> What about the "Savannah Hypothesis"?  Still safe for a while, since
> although we now know uprightness developed in thicker 
> forests, it can't be
> pinned to water.  We may have gone upright, then stepped out 
> of the woods.
> 
> What though about secondary quadripedality in chimps and 
> gorillas?  If we
> are to discount the molecular evidence, especially since its 
> phylogeny's
> topology is so well corroborated by the clocked time 
> intervals, how are we
> to defend phylogenies where molecules are unavailable?  The 
> idea that the
> known fossils left no modern lineages of chimps or men, yet 
> no ancestors of
> modern types have been found, would be very hard to justify.
> 
> I think we'll have to bite the bullet on this one now, though 
> there's no
> real difficulty for us.  The sensitive aspect, human 
> phylogeny, is barely
> changed; we can simply say that through our phylogenetic 
> technology we have
> merely discovered the dear old chimps are are bit nearer and 
> a bit more
> interesting than we thought.  Anyway, the average person 
> doesn't care much
> if we split 3,4,5,10 or 20 mya.
> 
> Our story of the emergence of the tetrapods needs tidying up a bit,
> including as it so often does the claim that since we've 
> found an animal
> with limbs but without lungs, those limbs can never have been 
> used on or
> evolved for land.  There are too many amphibious but lungless
> counter-examples, and everyone knows returning to the water 
> has occured
> repeatedly.  We should pre-empt the smart-alecs by 
> re-introducing a little
> modest uncertainty here.
> 
> The "bird" question is unfortunately rather unstable.  
> Although certain
> aspects of the previous theory look increasingly improbable, 
> and it does not
> seem likely to reverse its slow descent relative to the 
> current one, it will
> not be possible to suppress further alternatives 
> indefinitely.  These new
> alternatives present such a stark contrast to the currently 
> accepted views,
> and a threat to current practices that acceptance would be 
> unthinkable.
> 
> In order to avoid an entire branch of the profession having 
> to explain a
> volte-face in their beliefs, I would tend to encourage the following
> approach: When the current blackout of the new theories can 
> no longer be
> sustained, any unavoidable questions about them should 
> exploit the confusion
> of the profusion of the new possibilities (there are at least two new
> theories).
> 
> In the unlikely event of yet further recourse being necessary, the
> requirement for new theories to provide undeniable positive 
> evidence is
> likely to remain a plausible defence for some time.  Most 
> scientists have as
> much distain for philosophy as anyone, and for current 
> philosophy to be
> first convincingly demonstrated computationally, then 
> commonly understood
> will take fifty years at the very least.
> 
> By then our own investigations into the response of organisms crossing
> between widely differing environments, and the way algorithms 
> behave in
> trying to retrieve the true trees in such cases, will allow 
> us to claim a
> major role in the demonstration of any new theory if necessary.
> 
> 
> With regard to the requirement for making a major 
> contribution to science
> and to tackling issues of contemporary concern, I would 
> advise a prudent
> approach on two main grounds.  Publicising the true core of 
> the scientific
> process would inevitably bring us up against our patrons in 
> government, and
> their, and our, patrons in the fossil fuels industry, which 
> would inevitably
> reflect unfavourably on our funding, particularly for 
> micropalaeontology. It
> would be injudicious to be seen to back the view that beliefs 
> worthy of
> action can arise in the absence of "certain" evidence, 
> whatever comparison
> detractors may make to fiddling with the controls of an 
> aircraft with only
> uncertain results.  We therefore have no place in advising premature
> intervention in issues such as global warming and BSE, and 
> should restrict
> ourselves to keeping the public informed of "uncontrovertible 
> facts" as and
> when the various situations become clearer.
> 
> The second reason for caution in handling issues involving 
> the principle of
> refutation has been touched on earlier: it would clash with 
> our position
> vis-a-vis topics of popular concern in vertebrate 
> palaeontology, and we don'
> t want to confuse the public, do we.  It should be said 
> though that the risk
> of anyone spotting any such inconsistency and then being able 
> to express it
> in a telling sound-bite down the right channels is vanishingly small.
> 
> The last thing palaeontology and the museum wants is some 
> kind of "Sir Roy"
> figure explaining everything and its full significance, 
> meeting undiscovered
> challenges, and rushing around telling everyone outside the 
> museum what they
> must and mustn't do.  The eventually inevitable automated 
> world-wide data
> analysis and theory generation system must be controlled and 
> developed by us
> or a group of significant museums including ourselves, but 
> there is no need
> for the public to be bothered by any preliminary 
> announcements until we are
> ready to explain them at our own convenience.  Up until now 
> palaeontology's
> relative untestability has given us a free hand, but we must 
> now start using
> techniques from those testable disciplines closest to our own 
> operations,
> and we will want to be in a position, should anything 
> untoward emerge, to
> spin it out carefully and judiciously.
> 
> 
> Moving on to the exhibits themselves, I have no plans for any 
> extensive
> reorganisation, finding the current layouts very inspiring, but also
> appreciating the classical formats that allow plenty of 
> comparison.  The
> temporary exhibitions have been successful too, so I would 
> tend to give the
> sub-departments a relatively free hand.
> 
> However, I would provide computerised captions for each 
> exhibit, which would
> allow visitors to extract as much information as they wanted, 
> linking in
> with other resources on the web, and elsewhere in the museum. 
>  A little
> "visitor modelling" would be quite straightforward, allowing 
> each to be
> addressed at the best level.  Many a time I have fulfilled this role
> personally, engaging the interest of chance visitors I find 
> in the museum,
> and explaining the errors in the captions and current 
> understandings as I
> take them around.
> 
> In the entrance, we could pension off dear old Diplodocus and 
> get something
> big, but that would be in the long term.  In the medium term, 
> we could have
> the "Fighting Pair" represented by five holograms in a cube, 
> and electronic
> pointers on computer screens allowing the various parts of 
> the fossils to be
> explained, along with their broader significancies.  Each 
> visitor could then
> be sent on their own special tour of the museum, and picked 
> up by the system
> as they interact with each computerised caption.
> 
> 
> As to staff policy, I believe there has been a tradition, 
> celebrated even in
> the literature, of extended discussions in the pub during 
> working hours.  We
> all know where that has led.  My first action upon taking 
> command will be to
> instigate knowledge engineering workshops held every Friday 
> afternoon from
> 1:30 - 4:30, for every academic member of the department.  I 
> am sure the
> governors would agree this would prove much more useful in 
> the long run.
> 
> 
> As to my scheme of personal emolument, so long as my non-contributory
> pension were maintained according to the advertised salary 
> (anything is
> possible for a skilled accountant), and I received the first 
> class season
> ticket from Southampton and a new good suit annually, in 
> addition to regular
> conference expenses etc, I would be happy to take as a basic 
> salary just the
> national minimum wage.  I feel sure those on the selection panel will
> appreciate how useful the savings to them will be for paying 
> for a member of
> staff or for whatever purposes they may deem suitable.
> 
>