A bit more about the AMNH Exhibit

Many thanks to Dave Hone for posting the great photos from Steve Cohen of the new AMNH Exhibit. I have been meaning to post about the exhibit over a month now, but April-May is the skeletomuscular course in the medical program at USC, so blogging has been on the back burner.

In any case, as Dave mentioned, I had a role in the new exhibit. In fact, I had a relatively substantial role. As full disclosure, I was a paid consultant on the exhibit (titled "Pterosaurs: Flight in the Age of Dinosaurs"). I worked with the staff there for a little over a year on the interactive flight simulations, and I did recorded interviews for use in the theater and iPad interactive displays. I also helped rather extensively with the script used for the theater presentation (which is mostly about flight). One thing that neither myself, nor Alex Kellner (the co-curator on the exhibit) were approached about were the promo images. I won't detail any politics on that front now, but some of you may be aware that there some issues that arose on that front. What I can say is that the animation and video folks were not involved in that process, either (and used entirely different models for their reconstructions), nor were the sculptors so far as I am aware. So the promo images seem to be a bit of an isolated entity.

In any case, the exhibit opened on April 5th, 2014. Here is the official website for the exhibit: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/current-exhibitions/pterosaurs-flight-in-the-age-of-dinosaurs

They ran a promo video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsI8ZtsSVqY

On April 1st there was a media preview event, with a panel composed of myself, Alex Kellner, Mark Norell and Michael Novacek. It was well attended, and yield quite a bit of press for the exhibit. Some of the popular articles can be found at:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140405-pterosaur-flying-reptile-museum-exhibit-paleontology-science/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/arts/design/natural-history-museum-explores-the-wonders-of-pterosaurs.html

http://worldsciencefestival.com/blog/pterosaurs_take_to_the_skies_of_new_york_city

http://mentalfloss.com/article/56005/qa-michael-habib-pterosaur-flight-expert

http://www.livescience.com/44556-how-pterosaurs-ruled-the-skies.html

http://mentalfloss.com/article/56021/10-pterosaur-facts-new-exhibit-american-museum-natural-history

As always, there is some variation in the quality of coverage, but overall I thought the writers did a good job of talking up the exhibit while hitting some of the interesting science involved. There will likely be more coming from Scientific American, as well, since I have chatted with them pretty extensively in the weeks following the opening (but more on that when the article(s) hit print).

Some things to look forward to in the exhibit (which stays at the AMNH through early January, at which point it will travel to other museums):

- Excellent specimens. Dave covered this already (see previous post) so I won't belabor it here. They have some awesome stuff, though (including the Dark Wing, which is on display outside Europe for the first time).

- Motion capture interactive animations that allow you to control launch, feeding, and flight in Pteranodon and Jeholopterus. The floating position of the Pteranodon was originally quite bird-like. It was updated using the floating paper by Hone and Henderson at my suggestion. The Pteranodon launch is a water launch and looks pretty wicked. The flight simulation includes basic physics like stall, L:D ratio transitions, and basic rate of climb estimates.

- A full-scale fleshed out reconstruction of Quetzalcoatlus northropi hanging from the ceiling just above reach, with a cutaway to show plausible flight muscle attachment. It's a great sculpture. Sadly, it came together just a little too soon to incorporate the updated proportions from my project with David Krentz. They did, however, feature David's 3D digital model on a sign near the sculpture showing how our reconstructions of Quetzalcoatlus have evolved over time.

- An amazing sculpture diorama (full size) of Tupuxuara - the models are by Jason Brougham, who is fantastic at paleo-reconstruction. The pair is shown feeding on fish in a traditional pluck-grab mode. As some know, Mark Witton and I both prefer an alternative ecology for these animals, but the sculptures are still magnificent (and to be fair, their feeding ecology is contentious - they can't just side with me every time). 

If you are in NYC, the exhibit is well worth a visit (the specimens alone make it worthwhile).

Cheers,

--MBH

Pterosaur fact checking

I will keep this brief, since Mark already did a great job of responding to the media release from the recent Chatterjee et al. presentation.  One thing to look for in any sort of functional morphology argument is whether the anatomy, the numbers, and the behavior all match up.  One reason the Chatterjee et al. abstract is so immediately concerning is that their own information doesn't jive internally.

Example 1: one of their concerns with the quad launch hypothesis is clearance for the wings after launch.  Now, I've calculated the expected clearance and everything seems fine, but that doesn't mean I'm right.  Maybe someone will find an error at some point.  What is clearly not going to be true, however, is the idea that keeping the feet on the ground (biped running launch) is going to give more clearance than a leap.  It simply isn't possible to get more clearance by not jumping (it might be true that jumping still isn't enough, but it's not going to be worse).  So Chatterjee et al. have a mismatch between their own conclusions and their arguments with the competing model.  The numbers and the behavior don't match up.

Example 2: Chatterjee et al. argue that pterosaurs can't work as scaled up bats, and argue instead that they should work like scaled up birds.  Anatomically, pterosaurs don't match either of these, so the bat argument is a straw man, and the bird argument is moot.  The anatomy and the behavior don't match up.

These are the sorts of arguments that raise red flags in scientific discourse.  On a final note, there are some basic fact checking items that should be looked out for, such as claims about living animals.  From the media story, Chatterjee is quoted as saying "Like albatrosses and the Great Kori bustards, which weigh 20 to 40 pounds, ground takeoff was agonizing and embarrassing for Quetzalcoatlus."

Aside from the problem with the pterosaur analogy, there is the obvious problem that Kori bustards don't have trouble taking off (though they might find it embarrassing; I haven't asked them).  In fact, Kori bustards can leap into flight at a steep angle.  Check this out.  Yes, the bustard tries running to escape, first, but when pressed, it just leaps into the air.  No big runway, no "agonizing" takeoff.  In fact, there is no correlation between running launch and size in living birds or bats.  More on that some other time, but in general, if a YouTube search quickly demonstrates that your commentary is flawed, that's a bit worrisome.

How giant pterosaurs are struggling to take off from the sinking ship of science journalism

This week, it emerged that the giant azhdarchid Quetzalcoatlus was an atrophied, under muscled animal that was weak and inefficient at takeoff, and could only launch through use of running bipedally with flapping wings, headwinds and downward sloping ground. The newly proposed idea of quadrupedal launch, where pterosaurs became airborne via powerful leaping with all four limbs (Habib 2008) is hokum, being the stuff of fantasy and overly zealous application of bat launch strategies to flying reptiles. 70 kg is the maximum mass that these giants and all other flying animals could achieve, and recent discussions that they were considerably more massive (Paul 2002; Witton 2008; Henderson 2010; Witton and Habib 2010) are plain wrong.

At least, that’s what a recent press release by Sankar Chatterjee and colleagues would have us believe. (Above image: the pterosaur launch battleground. At top is a quad launching Hatzegopteryx, a giant azhdarchid; below, is a bipedally launching Quetzalcoatlus using taxiing, headwinds and a slope to become airborne. Hatzegopteryx is from Witton [2013]; Quetzalcoatlus is from Chatterjee and Templin [2004]) Speaking at the Geological Society of America 2012 conference recently held in Charlotte, N.C., Chatterjee (of the Museum of Texas Tech University; most notable within recent pterosaur research for his contribution of windsurfing tapejarids to the Attenborough pterosaur documentary) and colleagues outlined why he considers much of the recent discussions of giant pterosaur flight dynamics to be flawed in a short presentation, and decided to disseminate their ideas further through the public press. Although the press reports for this story have been relatively widespread, the response from pterosaur researchers to this release has been generally negative, largely because the claims do little to address the recent developments and hypothesis shifts within pterosaur flight studies and largely parrot the findings of Chatterjee and Templin’s 2004 paper on pterosaur flight. Pterosaur.Net’s own Mike Habib, one the key modern researchers on pterosaur flight, offered this take on the release:

“Unfortunately, this looks like the argument comes down to ‘but we got a different answer in 2004!’ Yes.  We know, and for five years I've explained why it is probably wrong.  Oh well.”

Chatterjee et al.’s abstract and press release do not explain why the many arguments supporting pterosaur quad launch (see here and here, for a start) are problematic or why arguments and methodologies to estimate relatively high masses for pterosaurs (here) are incorrect. Instead, they’ve decided that such scientific rigour doesn’t matter, and gone straight into informing the public that giant pterosaurs took flight in the way described in their presentation, and that all other opinions on the matter are wrong.

By bigging up their abstract rather than a peer-reviewed publication in which their methodological details and discussion are explained in detail, Chatterjee et al. have given the impression that their work is more scientifically credible than it actually is. Science journalists have lapped the release up, presumably because giant pterosaurs are cool, but they have not mentioned the lack of a detailed peer-reviewed study behind the findings, nor (in the majority of cases) bothered to find out what other palaeontologists make of the story. This is not the first time this sort of outreach has happened. The proceedings of other conferences and un-reviewed articles have given us infamous press stories such as the ‘Triassic kraken’, vampire pterosaurs, and the suggestion that all dinosaurs were aquatic. And these are just examples from recent memory.

As a scientist concerned about effective and accurate scientific outreach, I find this sort of journalism very worrying. I have no problem with off-kilter ideas like those proposed by Chatterjee et al., but their desire for press attention without applying appropriate scientific rigour is extremely concerning. They have not documented their studies in a scientific paper, sought the opinions of other experts in peer review to construct a scientifically sound hypothesis and news piece. Instead, they went straight from the ‘idea’ phase of their project to media broadcasting, which, as I see it, has three effects. Firstly, it risks misleading the public if their ideas fail to meet scientific scrutiny (most of the ideas mentioned thus far in this article are guilty of this, and I strongly suspect the same is true of the Chatterjee et al. story). Secondly, it undermines the integrity of the scientists behind the story. The idea that “any publicity is good publicity” does not apply to scientists. Within academic circles, you become “the guy who went public with [crazy idea]”, which doesn’t do your reputation, or that of your institution, any favours. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, such practises undermine science generally. It’s no wonder that palaeontology is often viewed as a speculative and unsubstantiated discipline when a lot of our press work concerns unsubstantiated, often ‘fringe’ or highly controversial ideas being presented as credible hypotheses. This only creates confusion among people as to what the leading hypotheses on given topics are or, when press stories have gaping holes in logic (e.g. the Triassic kraken, aquatic dinosaurs) show scientists as bumbling, foolish individuals incapable of using common sense.

This is a serious problem which we, as scientists and scientific communicators, need to address. Many people are generally sceptical of scientists and their conclusions, concocting up ideas of scientists in scaremongering conspiracies for grant money, or seeking media attention to justify their employment at publically funded museums and universities. The manner in which scientists frequently present unsubstantiated work to non-academics does little to help restore our reputation with these individuals. While it’s of fairly trivial concern whether the public, or anyone for that matter, knows the ins-and-outs of pterosaur launch, all scientists need to think about the broad perception of science by the public. Scientists researching our many severe, modern crises need to be taken seriously, and press reports that expose incomplete or shoddy scientific work negatively impact this perception. Fairly or not, many people, tar all scientists with the same brush (for proof, check out the comments section on any science story publicised by the Daily Mail). We should be working to enhance the reputation of science among the public so that scientific opinions on critical issues like our on-going losses of biodiversity, climate change, sustainability of our lifestyles, energy conservation, and other real, genuine problems are trusted and taken seriously. Scientists leaping for the press with hypotheses that have yet to be suitably tested only present scientists as attention seekers, incompetent or both, and we cannot afford to perpetuate this idea further.

Of course, the fault does not only lay with the scientists. Science journalists also need to raise their game, becoming more circumspect when following and writing up of press stories, noting the state of the research involved, gauging its context within its field and, perhaps in some cases, ignoring clearly bogus, fringe reports entirely. I have worked with a great number of people involved in the scientific media who clearly do not have any interest in science beyond their job, and these are the worst people to be trying to turn the sometimes complex hypotheses of scientists into digestible material for laymen. As Brian Switek shows on a daily basis at Dinosaur Tracking, you become an exemplar science journalist not by just being a deft writer, but you have to give a crap about science too. Failure to fact check and presenting ideas inaccurately is miscommunication, which is clearly an enormous failing for an individual employed to dissemination of information.

In short, we need to stop thinking about scientific outreach as purely an exercise in getting the most attention possible to our research or science news articles. These short-term goals are damaging to science as a whole, which is what science communicators are meant to promote. Science communication is an opportunity to educate non-academics with new and exciting results of good scientific practise that have helped develop our understanding of the world and our place within it. We should take the responsibility that this task requires fully and seriously if we want our scientific voice to be listened to.

References

• Chatterjee, S. and Templin, R. J. 2004.  Posture, Locomotion and Palaeoecology of Pterosaurs. Geological Society of America Special Publication, 376, 1-64.
• Habib, M.B. 2008. Comparative evidence for quadrupedal launch in pterosaurs. Zitteliana, B28, 161-168.
• Henderson, D. M. 2010. Pterosaur body mass estimates from three-dimensional mathematical slicing. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 30, 768-785.
• Paul, G. S. 2002. Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 472 pp.
• Witton, M. P. 2008. A new approach to determining pterosaur body mass and its implications for pterosaur flight. Zitteliana, B28, 143-159.
• Witton, M. P. 2013. Pterosaurs: Natural History, Evolution, Anatomy. Princeton University Press. [In press]
• Witton, M. P. and Habib, M. B. 2010. On the size and flight diversity of giant pterosaurs, the use of birds as pterosaur analogues and comments on pterosaur flightlessness. PLoS ONE, 5, e13982.