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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past