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
- Habib, M.B. 2008. Comparative evidence for quadrupedal launch in pterosaurs. Zitteliana, B28, 161-168.
- Paul, G. S. 2002. Dinosaurs of
the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds.
- 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.
