[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: NGS archaeoraptor stuff

(Grumble, grumble: either I had too much coffee this morning, or I didn't
have not enough coffee):

>>This just in from NGS:
>    For Immediate Release
>WASHINGTON-Based on the best scientific information available at press 
>NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC reported on the Archaeoraptor fossil in the
>November issue of the magazine.
>Only after the magazine had been published did NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC 
>about the possibility that the fossil might be a composite. If it is 
>a composite, it
>initially escaped detection by a team of scientists that included top 
>experts on bird

It did *not* escape detection.  However, National Geographic did publish
on this specimen prematurely.

>We immediately began an investigation into the matter and took the 
>earliest possible
>opportunity to publish a disclosure of the new information in NATIONAL
>GEOGRAPHIC magazine (March 2000). We were obviously disappointed to 
>that Archaeoraptor might be a composite and are committed to getting 
>to the
>bottom of the mystery of this fossil.

It is not the job of National Geographic to do this (they still haven't
learned a lesson from this fiasco).

>The magazine will report the 
>findings to its

Hopefully, this will happen  AFTER the scientists publish first.

>We also funded the original CT scanning work on the fossil and hope to 
>see the
>published analysis in a peer-reviewed journal soon.

Good.  Much better than "doin' science" in a pop-magazine.

grumble, grumble.  Back to the coffee.


Disclaimer:  I *like* _National Geographic_ magazine.  But I think they
tend to get confused when it comes to distinguishing the process of
science from the process of journalism. (grumble, grumble).

Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit: