Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ellenrr

(3,864 posts)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 06:32 AM Jan 2016

H. naledi has shaken up the way that paleoanthropology goes about the business of doing science

Four months after the announcement (of new species Homo Naledi), questions about H. naledi have crept up. Articles about the fossils were published too quickly, naysayers claim. They were published without “proper” peer review. Moreover, the fossils—and the entire Rising Star Expedition that found them—are simply a means of fueling the project’s media agenda.

If the history of paleoanthropology shows us anything, it’s that controversy over a new fossil hominin species is nothing new. In fact, most newly discovered hominin species have undergone periods of serious scrutiny, particularly because discoveries force scientists to rethink evolutionary relationships. For the past hundred years, paleoanthropologists have bandied about insults, in addition to hypotheses, as they discussed fossil hominins in academic and public circles.

The H. naledi brouhaha, however, offers a curiously new type of challenge for paleoanthropology. Instead of shaking up the hominin evolutionary tree, H. naledi has shaken up the way that paleoanthropology goes about the business of doing science.

Traditionally, fossils have been studied and published in a very top-down way, where small teams of senior experts spend years (even decades) studying fossil hominins before publishing their discoveries in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. This means the fossils are carefully scrutinized, measured, compared, and analyzed before they reach a public audience. The peer-review process of such top-tier journals—like Science or Nature—forms a well-established social system of checks and balances, ensuring that research credibility is attached to published discoveries.

The H. naledi project has championed an opposite view of how data should be collected and distributed. Berger’s team found, excavated, studied, and published the Rising Star Cave’s cache of more than 1,550 fossils in just two years. The project has relied on the expertise of many young, early career researchers. In addition, the project published scans of the fossils themselves in eLife in September 2015, an open-access journal with a shorter peer-review process.


http://daily.jstor.org/homo-naledi-and-paradigm-shift/
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
H. naledi has shaken up the way that paleoanthropology goes about the business of doing science (Original Post) ellenrr Jan 2016 OP
I read both of the published papers. They were extremely detailed. Yo_Mama Jan 2016 #1
I agree. Paleoanthropology needed a shake-up. The "Academy" which is composed of ellenrr Jan 2016 #2
Oh - good point. Yes, it's great for recruiting people, which is important. Yo_Mama Jan 2016 #3

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
1. I read both of the published papers. They were extremely detailed.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:19 PM
Jan 2016

If this is a huge shakeup of paleoanthropology, perhaps paleoanthropology needed a shakeup.

I understand the criticism about not being able to date the fossils, but that may take years, because they liteally don't know how to do it. In the meantime, who knows what other researchers may pursue from having had this level of detail available?

This isn't a few bones. It was a huge find of a clearly distinct species, and a very startling find. I think there was nothing at all inappropriate about publishing what they did publish, when they did publish it.

ellenrr

(3,864 posts)
2. I agree. Paleoanthropology needed a shake-up. The "Academy" which is composed of
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 10:36 AM
Jan 2016

old, white European men, did not want a shake-up.
I think it was great the way the find was presented to the public.
And I think more people probably know about the find and got interested in anthropology bec. of the way it was presented.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
3. Oh - good point. Yes, it's great for recruiting people, which is important.
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 02:45 PM
Jan 2016

But I also think that a find this frankly weird and paradigm-busting is great for current paleoanthropologists. I also believe it was correct to publish because getting more minds at work on the problem may assist in dating. Plus, the paradigm having been busted will change the way other paleoanthropologists go about their work. It may cause other fossil finds to be reexamined or reinterpreted, which is really why some people are squawking.

The only valid criticism of premature publication really is, to my mind, that the conclusions drawn are premature and that further fieldwork will change them. This doesn't apply here - there is no question of what they found. Putting this find in perspective may take another 50 years of research into early homind species. But the find won't change. It won't change at all.

The thing about this discovery is that it is astonishingly rare to find such a huge collection of well-preserved skeletal fossils.

Paleoanthropology is in an incredibly exciting ferment right now. The Dmansi fossils, the Hobbits, the Denisovians, the DNA findings in Spain (among the most interesting, IMO), and now the Red Deer Cave people.

The consensus is gone. It won't be coming back.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Anthropology»H. naledi has shaken up t...