In 2009, I attended a course entitled Communicating Science. It was a real eye opener into the world of the media reporting academic findings to the public. There has always been an underlying current of a hate/hate relationship between academics and journalists. Such misunderstandings and miscommunication between the two have led to a certain level of resentment of academics towards journalists as findings are twisted. Even though it is very clear to me to see such distortion in the sciences, the same can be said about archaeology. Having awareness and drumming up excitement about findings is one thing, but communicating it and interpreting is another. The public are, after all, very prone to eating up any comments or quotes from the experts. So when new outrageous and somewhat doubtful claims are made, the journalists are quick on the mark to immediately sensationalise. This then leads to the problem where headlines do not reflect the true conclusions from those in academia. In the realm of science, two very important topics which are vulnerable to sensationalism are swine flu and climate change. But archaeology, of course, has its controversial topics. A perfect example of where this has taken place is the discovery of Ida, an exceptionally preserved fossil from Germany that shook the foundations of human evolution in 2009. The sensationalism that came from this prompted me and Dr Pia Nystrom to co-host a one off seminar on Ida last year.

Discovered in 1983, this complete primate fossil was so well preserved that its digestive contents were intact. Morphological and palaeo-biological analyses found that this specimen was female, less than a year old, survived on a diet of fruit and leaves, and died as a result of a volcanic eruption at approximately 47 million years ago. The characteristics of this specimen meant that placing it taxonomically in one of the two primate groups (super-families): Strepsirrhines or Haplorrhines was extremely difficult. While the Strepsirrhines eventually included the lemurs (Family- Lemuroidea), the Haplorrhines included monkeys, apes and then humans amongst other species. Placing this new specimen, termed Darwinius masillae aka Ida, into its correct taxonomic group would thus have implications in the evolution of the lineages that eventually led to humans. The team that analysed the specimen led by Dr Jørn Hurum (University of Oslo) were claiming, even before their paper was published, (Franzen et al., 2009) that Ida was the “missing link” linking primates to humans. This led to an uproar in the palaeontological community and within days, Ida already had a website (www.revealingthelink.com), a documentary, and a book “Ida: The Missing Link” by Colin Tudge (Little, Brown and Company). The hype surrounding Ida was so big that Google developed its own logo and Jørn Hurum had shot to fame. But what was crucial to this reaction was that there had been an embargo where the team were making their claims before their paper was published. In their paper, their decision as to where to place Ida taxonomically was extremely vague:

“Defining characters of Darwinius ally it with early haplorrhines rather than strepsirrhines. We do not interpret Darwinius as anthropoid [the lineage that led to humans], but the adapoid primates [a strepsirrhine group] it represents deserve more careful comparison. . . .” p. e5723 (Franzen et al., 2009).

“Note that Darwinius masillae, and adapoids contemporary with early tarsioids [a haplorrhine group], could represent a stem group which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids.” p. e5723 (Franzen et al., 2009).

‘ “This is like finding the Holy Grail for palaeontologists” he [Jørn Hurum] enthused ”this is the first link to all humans.” ‘(Gibbons, 2009).

In the paper he is stating that Ida belongs to a stem group from which both primate groups (Strepsirrhines and Haplorrhines) may have evolved and but through analysis, Ida is placed within the Strepsirrhine group i.e. in the group that does not lead to humans. And yet, he is describing this fossil as the ‘first link to all humans’ and consequently as the “missing link”. When considering the term “missing link”, I (and perhaps most others) think of a specimen or species being taxonomically placed further down in the primate tree, somewhere between humans and chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans, the first hominid as discussed by Wong (2003). Coining Ida as a missing link to all humans is false. It is not the link to humans as many palaeontologists claim (Gibbons, 2009) and many are extremely disappointed with the resulting mistrust that the public could develop against the palaeontological community. However, it might be more pertinent to describe Ida as a missing link to primates. A perfect illustration of when an expert minces his words (maybe even purposefully), and the journalists get into a flurry of excitement. What I think has happened is that the exceptional preservation of Ida excited the team to such a degree that if they played it up and embargoed their findings, they could get their fifteen minutes of fame. Getting ahead of themselves and their miscommunication consequently led to the barrage of sceptical comments and now, probably even more confused journalists than ever before. So where does this lead the field? Most likely to a stage where journalists may not even trust those in any academic discipline.

It is very easy in situations such as these to blame the other party. In the case of Ida, the journalists are none the wiser as the Oslo team attempt to hog the limelight. But it seems so effortless for other academics to casually dismiss journalists. Quite a few times, I have heard some experts in the field of archaeology roll their eyes as the media is brought up. In archaeology, which is more subjective than science and less fatalistic, should there be any dubious claims, I think it is important to be able to present both sides of a story and apply the same principles when speaking to journalists as when writing academic papers. Archaeology is filled with many disputing theories that providing this background is necessary to impress upon the lay-person the debates inherent in the field. It is thus important for both sides to develop a better understanding of the other in order to get the breakthroughs out there effectively. Journalists do not specialise in all academic disciplines, they do not know the majority argument and will not know those who are the experts in the field. As much as journalists need to do their research, archaeologists also need to be understanding that journalists are pressed for time. They need to be patient with them and have to be careful how they present their work.

So important it is that academics recognise the above that journalists provide their own ideas for smoothing the process. Toby Murcott (writer and broadcaster, of Glamorgan University) proposes that reviewer’s comments are posted alongside academic papers as they are published (Murcott, 2009). Making academics understand the process of journalism and dealing with the media has meant that the Royal Society has its own communicating science courses and has even published a report for scientists in dealing with the media (Royal Society, 2000).
I cannot emphasise enough how important it is to not blame the other party for false illusions of archaeology or any other academic discipline that the public hold, and I strongly recommend more patience amongst academics. Having taken the Communicating Science course last year has meant that at my early career stage, I am moulding myself to communicate what I do effectively. Closer to home, in the realm of Neanderthals, this means that I can portray a realistic and yet sceptical picture of whether Neanderthals and early modern humans did interbreed (Green et al., 2010). In the field of archaeology wrought with controversial topics, this only can be a good thing.

References
Franzen et al. 2009. Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology. PLoS One 4 (5), e5723

Gibbon, A. 2009. Celebrity Fossil Primate: Missing Link or Weak Link? Science 324, 1124-1125

Green et al. 2010. A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science 328, 710-722.

Murcott, T. Science Journalism: Toppling the priesthood. Science 459, 1054-1055.

Royal Society. 2000 (March). Policy Reports: Scientists and the media.

Wong, K. 2003. An Ancestor to Call Our Own. Scientific American Special Edition: New Look at Human Evolution 13 (2), 4-13.

Science Brainwaves
Science Brainwaves is a project organised by staff and students of the
University of Sheffield to promote the public engagement of science by bringing
together scientists, students, the public and those of the arts and humanities.
For more information and details on upcoming events, see
http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/

The Science Brainwaves committee and the Graduate Research Office are currently
setting up a new RTP module entitled Postgraduate Cafe Forum which aims to
provide PGRs with the tools to communicate their research effectively to the
public. It is hoped to start October 2010.
 

About the author
Danae Dodge
Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield
E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://sheffield.academia.edu/DanaeDodge

Danae Dodge is currently finishing her PhD “A Molecular Approach to the Neanderthal Extinction” under the supervision of Dr Paul Pettitt. Her BSc was in Applied Biology at the University of Newcastle, and her MSc was in Biomolecular Archaeology here at the University of Sheffield. Apart from a vested interest in Neanderthals, human evolution and science communication, her interests also include genetics, scientific politics and scientific education.