It remains one of the most dramatic human fossil finds of recent years. In 2013, in a tiny, cramped chamber in the Rising Star cave near Johannesburg, researchers led by paleontologist Lee Berger uncovered several thousand bones of ancient humans. The team now concludes that these are the remains of a previously unknown species, Homo naledi.
The news, announced in September, made headlines around the world. However, the discovery has since become mired in controversy. Some scientists claim the bones belong to an already known species of human, Homo erectus. Others have criticized Berger for claiming that the remains come from a deliberate burial, while several have complained that he has not been able to date his finds.
However, the real controversy has been over the manner in which Berger has revealed his work to the world. Paleontology is a discipline noted for the amount of time senior experts take to study a single skeleton in isolation before publishing results in an established peer-reviewed journal, while retaining tight control of the fossils they have discovered. Some take more than a decade to do so.
Illustration: Yusha
By contrast, Berger and his colleagues have acted with extraordinary rapidity, under the glare of National Geographic cameras, using teams of young researchers to help publish their results in an open-access journal while offering files that can be used by anyone with the right basic equipment to make 3D copies of Naledi skulls and bones. To say that old-school fossil-hunters disapprove would be something of an understatement.
Many senior paleontologists believe the way the Naledi finds were revealed and analyzed — in less than two years — represents a dangerous precedent, “a media circus” that threatens to split paleontology into old and new schools and which could damage our attempts to understand the path of human evolution. Others believe it could provide the field with a major boost.
Among the critics is paleontologist Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley.
“There are many things wrong with the way we proceed in paleontology today, in particular the slowness involved in getting discoveries and their analysis published,” he said.
“But making sure you have got things right is also of critical importance, particularly in a science in which there are so few specimens left of any species. Rushing things, in particular to suit filmmakers, is very dangerous,” he said.
White took 15 years to publish his findings about the early apeman Ardipithecus ramidus. This included the three years that he took to remove its 4.4-million-year-old bones from the ground in the Afar Rift in northeastern Ethiopia before he scanned them and compared them with all other known fossils of a similar pedigree. Berger and his team say they did a similar job in months.
“We kept the media at bay for 10 years because you cannot do good science with reporters breathing down your neck,” White said.
“By contrast, Berger brought them in from the start and had them filming everything they were doing, and that had a harmful impact on their work. Cameramen and producers cost money and things get rushed as a result,” he said.
Other critics allege that the bones from the Rising Star cave were clearly damaged by excavators working in haste. Many fragments have white patches that represent fresh breaks which, in turn, are blamed on the speed at which the chamber’s excavators were working.
However, Berger — who is based at the Evolutionary Studies Institute at the University of Witwatersrand — flatly rejected this criticism.
“Before we started the dig, we could see the white patches on the bones and realized they had been caused by recent breakages,” he said.
“The point is that this is a chamber that was widely used by amateur cavers. They were the ones causing the damage. That is why we went in quickly — to stop further damage,” he said.
The fact that Berger used female cavers to retrieve Naledi bones — on the grounds that they were the only ones small enough to get into the chamber — has only irked his critics even more.
“There are many male cavers who could get in there, but that would have spoiled the publicity stunt,” one critic said.
The disconcerting speed of Berger’s actions did not cease with the removal of the chamber’s 1,500 pieces of Naledi fossils. Having taken them out, he called a workshop in Johannesburg to which he invited all interested “early-career” specialists — those who had just completed their doctorates or later postdoctoral work in the field of human evolution, an approach that contrasts with the more normal, lengthy process that involves a handful of highly expert scientists refining and defining their data about a new species in virtual isolation.
“Essentially, we had the numbers, so we could move more quickly,” Berger said.
However, University of Zurich anthropologist Christoph Zollikofer disagrees. He was involved in the discovery of a series of early humans in Georgia, with findings that took more than seven years to publish.
“There were things we simply did not understand, and we worked for years to verify our findings,” he told the journal California.
This did not happen with Berger.
Then came the search for a journal in which to publish their results. Berger said he avoided “high-impact” journals like Nature or Science because their peer-review process — in which fellow academics scrutinize their counterparts’ work — took so long. So, after an initial rejection by Nature, he chose eLife, an online, open-access journal which has a quicker, far easier peer-review process than long-established rivals.
“The process was much better, much less clubby than at the big journals, where a very few reviewers can have disproportionate influence on what is published,” Berger added.
Not everyone agrees. Many say eLife’s peer reviewing was lax and that the journal’s papers about Naledi contain errors. For example, some of Berger’s conclusions about Homo naledi being a separate species from Homo erectus are based on differences in cranial features. He says the former has an external occipital protuberance — a bump at the back of its skull — but Homo erectus does not.
“In fact, Homo erectus does have an occipital protuberance,” White said.
“It’s a very basic mistake,” he said.
However, Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum defended Berger’s approach.
“The creation of a new human species is always going to be controversial and I have my doubts about Berger’s suggestions of how the Naledi remains arrived in the chamber and the lack of attempts to date them. Nevertheless, Berger has published his material quickly and in some detail via open access,” Stringer said.
“Any serious researcher can now apply to study the material themselves. Files can also be downloaded free of charge to make 3D copies of the fossils, so people can make up their own minds. We were able to look at a 3D copy of the most complete jawbone only days after publication. This is a very refreshing approach to the study of human fossils,” he said.
This last point — the availability of free 3D copies of skulls, a first in human paleontology — was also stressed by Kent University paleontologist Matt Skinner, one of the early career scientists who was called to aid Berger to analyze the Naledi bone fragments.
“I need copies of key skulls to show my students,” he said.
“It is critical to their understanding of human evolution that they get to handle them, but casts of many of the most important skulls are still unavailable years after they were finally described in Nature or Science,” Skinner said.
“I think it is a bit cheeky that researchers are able to push their careers forward by publishing about fossils like Ardipithecus, but still do not make these finds available in copies that can be shown to students. My generation of academics is getting a bit fed up with that sort of thing. Hopefully, things are now going to change,” he said.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95