(UPDATED*) A tale of two blogs on skeletal Ida: At Smithsonian, and at Discovery Institute
For those who have not gotten enough on the trumpet-blaring roll out this week of Darwinius masillae, aka Ida, there may be something more to chew on thanks to a remarkably detailed and swiftly composed blog on the little old girl from Messel, Germany, and one of a different sort that cited it.
The blog, posted almost as soon as the news broke, comes from Brian Switek, a science writer with ties to the Smithsonian, at his Laelaps site. That was on Tuesday (if you read it, also check his briefer followups at the same site). What is notable is his detailed attack upon the authors of the PLoS ONE paper and their efforts to portray the specimen as directly from near a deep root to the ape-human lineage. Tracker doesn’t know his paleontology enough to comment on the substance of his critique, but does mumble “foul” when he declares that “Ida has become a victim of a sensationalistic media that values audience size over scientific substance.” That’s true only if “media” is taken as the entire enterprise including making movies, selling books, etc. If he meant news media – what’s left of it – it appears that relatively few major outlets went along with, or boosted, the hyperbolic exaggeration of the scientific significance of this wondrously well-preserved specimen as related to them by publicists from outfits deeply invested in making money via Ida’s sudden new status as commodity.
- (*UPDATE: Switek got a story into the Monday, May 26 Times in the UK with many of the same points, smoothed and polished and with a historic reference to Thomas Huxley in his lede, as he did in last week’s web log posts. It’s smart of the Times to pick up this sharp analysis.)
Switek’s labors appear entirely honest. Not so an “Evolution News & Views” post at the creationist Discovery Institute in Seattle. It offers Switek’s writing as ammunition for its cause. It disingenuously declares that “As is known, the Smithsonian doesn’t play nice with people who don’t toe the line. Switek doesn’t commit the sin of disavowing a strict Darwinian view, but he does chastise the establishment for overselling this latest “missing link.’” So Switek, in writing a heavily opinionated but purely Darwinian post, must suffer the injustice of being the day’s poster boy for an anti-evolution movement. A low blow is the implication he is pulling his punches on evolution only because taskmasters at the Smithsonian demand it. Argument within a field of science is not the same as argument against that science. Opportunists don’t always bother with such niggling niceties.
-CP
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:52 am
Thank you for the links. I did mean “media” in a wide sense, particularly the involvement of the History Channel and the book publisher, but I have to disagree that “news media” initially fared better. Coverage significantly changed once the paper was actually released (which was late) the later reports have carried a more skeptical tone than the early ones. Some of the first reports, like those from the Mail Online, the Wall Street Journal, and especially Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor) played up the “missing link” aspect (while, it must be admitted, they did include a little dissenting analysis).
As Carl Zimmer has pointed out on his blog, the Loom, (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/21/science-held-hostage/) science journalists were “held hostage” by the delayed release of the PLoS paper and the media barrage that was set up. Many outlets, like the New York Times, the BBC, the Guardian, the Times (UK), have done an admirable job of throwing some cold water on this ordeal, but recall that my comments were made as this story was breaking and many outlets were playing up the “missing link” angle. They have done much better than the History channel and other media groups directly involved in promoting this discovery, but the coverage of Ida did evolve as more became known.
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Thanks for adding your clarifications Brian – and I do urge readers to check your site for your later postings on this story’s evolution in media, narrowly and broadly defined. For a look at some responsible, and later, coverage check Michael D. Lemonick’s piece in Time Magazine (link added to Wednesday’s post too) at http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1900057,00.html?xid=rss-health.