The Science of Sue

Recently I read a most interesting book about the discovery of the then largest tyrannosaurus remains and the ensuing legal battle over its possession. Steve Fiffer is definitely on the side of those who dug the skeleton up, however, he does draw attention to the problems endemic to palaeontology, namely, the frequent differences between those who dig up the specimens and those who study them in academic institutions. While that is not to say people can't do both (there are a significant number of people in Tyrannosaurus Sue who do) it does highlight the perceived divide between those who dig up fossils as a business and those who do so with the backing of a university or museum.

Also intriguing was the way in which this discovery caused all sorts of controversy in the legal sphere. The land Sue was found on had contested ownership and the US government, a Native American tribe, the man who actually lived on the land and the company that dug it up were all involved. As the legal twists of the book unfold one of the most gripping ideas the book seems to explore, if not name, is the relationship between possession and science.

As a science palaeontology is very given to dealing in possessions with bones and imprints and rock samples being key. It also has a close connection with museums, themselves an educational institution that is based on possession. Thus, while Peter Larson, the man who headed the company that dug Sue up, planned to let anyone who wanted to research her, who had possession had to be decided first. This resulted in the bones being in storage for many years as the case went to court and a significant delay in any research or further restoration possibilities.

Such an event begs the question of when possession became more important than science and if there are in fact times when possession should become more important than science. Certainly the stealing of bones and sacred objects from the inhabitants of colonised lands would be something that could be examined in this light, and the question of whether the so-called advancement of science should be done at the expense of people, particularly people who have occupied such a disempowered position in history.

Yet when science is threatened from within by warring academics and exploratory palaeontologists is this really necessary and should some effort be made to think of the public good and not the egos of the people involved? Obviously the issue of ownership in Sue's case was extensively more complicated than depicted here and involved issues of legality, something many people have argued justified the means that were taken. However, the scandal as outlined in Fiffer's book does draw our attention to the links between science and possession and the dilemmas that can occur when ownership of an item is so hotly contested.

Rosalind for dotdotdash