Future of palaeontology

From
Date
The following is a copy of a recent letter to The Trilobite Papers about
the future of palaeontology:

08/26/97

Dear Rolf,

The Future of Palaeontology

I found the Second Interntaional Trilobite Conference very valuable as to
"what's hot" in trilobite research, but I notice that virtually nothing was
said about the difficulty - indeed crisis, - that trilobite workers, and
palaeontologists in general are experiencing right now. I am talking about
the reduction of positions and financial support for palaeontological
research, especially at the megafossil level, that is now a world wide
phenomenon. Positions are not being replaced, and few new ones are
available.

At the University of Toronto where I am studying, for example, there is
only one palaeontologist (Geoff Norris, a palynologist), and ROM only has a
few as well (Peter von Bitter, conodonts; Dave Rudkin, trilobites; Des
Collins, Burgess Shale).

Everywhere I go I hear more stories of cut-backs, reductions, and lack of
funds; clearly, palaeontology, especially mega-palaeontology, is becoming
an endangered profession. So we must "adapt or die" as the saying goes.

Palaeontology is a long way from extinction, but clearly we have a "crisis
of relevance" with respect to our publics - universities, governments, and
the public in general. This partially splits along time lines as Mesozoic
palaeo has been much more successful in firing the public's imagination and
garnering support. I don't have any statistics, but, from my observation,
the ratio of Mesozoic (dinosaur) TV documentaries to Palaeozoic must be
somewhere on the order of 10:1.

In order to survive and thrive palaeontology must identify exactly what it
has to offer the world and communicate it loudly and clearly. This is not
new information about the microstructure of the trilobite cuticle, or
biotic assemblages in the lower Ordovician of Newfoundland. Do not
misunderstand me - these subjects are important - for trilobite workers -
but what relevance do they have for the public?

Right now economic geology holds sway in universities and government
thinking, and (mega) palaeontology has only limited economic usefulness.
Micro is of course more economically oriented, and as a result, has not
suffered as much in the 1990 cut-backs. But the answer can not be economic,
as palaeontology will never be justified on that basis.

The short answer of course is that we have knowledge, and knowledge needs
no economic justification. That's true, but it's also glib, as it doesn't
solve the problem, or even try to deal with it intelligently.

I think the long answer is that palaeontology has knowledge which is
relevant to people's lives. Our job is to communicate it, to get the public
excited, to get them demanding courses at universities, community colleges,
museums, etc. As the population ages, huge numbers of older adults are
going back to school for personal enhancement and/or credit. Many of these
are former alumni of the universities and current financial supporters.
They are mostly well off. We need their support, their insistence that
universities maintain credible palaeo departments with credible research
programs.

To return to the more important question: what knowledge does palaeo
possess which can touch people's lives? Everyone will have their own ideas
of course, but I see three main areas of relevance:

1) Geology/palaeontology presents a unique perspective of time.
Palaeontology is the only discipline which seeks to track and explain the
major trends and patterns in the history of life and how humans fit in. We
are used to viewing time microscopically, in terms of days, weeks, months
or years; geology provides the bigger viewpoint and helps to broaden the
our perception of reality, taking us from our miniscule, self-involved,
often petty human viewpoint out into the grand sweep of deep time. Here is
a different kind of reality, perhaps a "higher" one, where the rush and
noise of the present fades into insignificance when compared to the "grand
scheme of things". Here we learn of the great cycles of nature that have
persisted and repeated for hundreds of millions, even billions of year, and
how our species fits in. We learn that human time is completely
anthropocentric and does little else than confirm our bondage to our
ephemeral physical form; appreciation and understanding of deep time is
epiphanic and confirms our participation in the great experiment of life.
In a sense, it is a vision of immortality.

2) Many will object to the phrase "grand scheme of things" in the previous
paragraph as a teleological assertion. In this century it has been
fashionable among palaeontologists and evolutionary biologists to assert
that there is in fact no design in the universe, and that evolution
functions partially by genetic adaptation and partially by good or bad
luck. Evolution appears to have no ultimate direction and of course humans
are no more the top of the evolutionary ladder than were trilobites in
their heyday. Yet the public persists in thinking otherwise. Even the
Catholic Church can accept evolution on this basis, that it represents some
kind of divine plan of which humans are the ultimate (spiritual)
participants and benefactors. Perhaps there is a "grand scheme"; I do not
know. But I do know that the study of palaeontology does not disprove the
existence of this scheme, any more than, say, the study of particle physics
proves there is a master plan in the universe - and many, if not most,
physicists see design at the sub-atomic level and assert some kind of
design at the cosmic level. It strikes me as arrogant to insist on the
opposite ("the ultimacy of chance", as one evolutionist put it), especially
considering where the assertion is coming from - one blinkered,
insignificant species with a biased, microscopic viewpoint, trying to
understand the huge scope of the cosmos. Agnosticism would be a safer
position to maintain than the stridency I often see promulgated at the
slightest hint that there might be design in evolution. Now I am certainly
no creationist, but if I might adopt one famous palaeontologist's penchant
for  quoting the Bible, I would refer you to Job 38:2-7.

Who is this obscuring my designs
with his empty-headed words?...
Where were you when I laid the earth's foundations?
Tell me, since you are so well informed!
Who decided the dimensions of it, do you know?
Or who stretched the measuring line across it?
Whot supports its pillars at their bases?
Who laid its cornerstone
when all the stars of the morning were singing with joy
and the Sons of God in chorus were chanting praise?

Yahweh is chastising Job for his temerity in questioning him and trying to
understand the divine plan. If there is one, can humans (or
palaeontologists) understand it? Or are we better off sticking to
identifying life's patterns, hypothesizing about the processes, and leaving
the rest alone?

What I am saying is that debunking the public's inbred belief that humans
have a reason for being here and that there is a meaning to life (beyond
our three score years and ten) may not be particularly healthy for the
profession, plus it is simply not a valid scientific position to take. We
weren't present at the big bang, we don't know if there is a design in the
universe that we can't see (although I admit it appears to be random), and
that's what we should say; not that we're certain there isn't - that's an
arrogant and untenable position to take, and certainly one which
contradicts the views of many scientists in other fields.

There are definitely patterns and processes which repeat in the history of
life in a cyclical or quasi-cyclical way. Humans love to be part of the
grand cycles of the universe; our myths of full of a primordial nostalgia
for a union with nature - it gives our lives meaning, harmony, and a
measure of immortality - a sense of belonging to something bigger than
oneself. The great conservation/nature/ecology movement of the 80's and
90's should teach us this. Humans want to understand and be part of the
whole. In short, palaeontology should be opening the door for humans to the
mainstream of life's history, without pre-judgement as to its origin or
outcome, and giving meaning to humans' lives, not trying to take it away.

3) Understanding the true nature of time and helping humans to live a
holistic life by participating in time's great panorama - these are two
areas of relevance for palaeontology. The third area of relevant knowledge
I would identify as more practical. Humans are fascinated by extinction and
origination and Palaeozoic palaeontologists are best equipped to interpret
these mega concepts to the public. Did mammals survive because they were
smaller, faster, and smarter than the reptiles, or was it pure chance?
Three of the five Phanerozoic mass extinctions were in the Palaeozoic -
what answer do they suggest to this question? - surely a different one than
the contingency answer of the catastrophists.

Dozens of books are written on human speciation each year, all confined to
the last few million years. What does Palaeozoic evolution tell us about
human origins? Trilobite workers have 300 million years of experience to
draw on and extrapolate from. Surely our experience with trilobites teaches
us something about the birth, life and death of another phylum and its
species. What is relevant? What about Palaeozoic chordates and vertebrates?
What predictions can we make about the human species? Isn't it time that we
think in those terms?

What about the tempo of (human) change?  Will it be gradual or episodic? In
the four thousand year old human history, humans have seen only stasis.
Surely palaeontologists, the "inventors" of the stasis/saltation debate,
have something to say about that.  Life's direction? Humans are obsessed
with improvement and facilitation, and we certainly see it happening by
quantum leaps all around us; yet as palaeontologists most of us say life
has no meaningful direction. And what drives evolution - the changing
environment, competition, or the internal demands of the genome to
reproduce itself? All these important questions palaeontologists have an
opinion on,  which they usually keep to themselves or bury in the
interpretation sections of monographs inaccessble to the public. Yet the
answers are relevant to the humans' everyday lives.

Every businessman knows, for example, that competition and the availability
of competitive niches drives the extinction, origination and success of new
businesses. In the 1990's it is certainly not the weather or environment,
not in human time at least. Yet palaeontologists by and large discount
competition as a major driving force in evolution. This conflicts with the
evolutionary ecologist/conservationist model which asserts that biotic
factors - i.e humans - cause extinction, and this is the model which is
getting all the funds today.  Palaeontologists are being "out-competed" on
both counts - their extinction model is not accepted, nor is their request
for funds. Perhaps some public education is needed? Perhaps the model
should be re-examined in terms of what is actually happening in the real
world in present time? Perhaps different levels of extinction have to be
identified, in both human and evolutionary time?

Who is making these interpretations to the public? Who is showing them the
relevance of palaeontology to their own lives? Why do many of the
"accepted" models of palaeontology conflict with human experience (the
direction and engine of evolution for example)?

To return to where I started: Palaeontology is in the middle of  a major
crisis of relevance which is affecting its future and its capacity to
operate as a valid scientific discipline. Palaeontology can not afford to
respond to this crisis with an ivory tower indifference, asserting that
pure research and the pursuit of knowledge is all that is important;
clearly that is not all  that is important, when the future of the science
itself is at stake.

Palaeontology is not one of the pure sciences; it cannot be justified by
knowledge alone - it must also provide direct relevance and meaning to the
publics who pay for its continuance,

I hope these thoughts provoke discussion among readers of Trilobite Papers,

Bryan Levman