[meteorite-list] conflicting viewpoints

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon Aug 14 21:55:38 2006
Message-ID: <007f01c6c00d$b6e708a0$ce29e146_at_ATARIENGINE>

Hi, List, Jeff,


   The reason why I stressed that this problem is
structural or systemic is that, assuming US meteoriticists
want to hunt meteorites in the field more than they do
(and Jeff is right; they do), is that it cannot be done on
the ad hoc basis that private hunters can avail themselves
of. An extensive groundwork would have to be in place
before academic scientists could fly off to a fresh fall.

   Since funding is largely top-down in origin, the NSF,
NASA, and various agencies have to be persuaded by
scientists a) that this is an essential function of what they do,
b) that it has been inexplicably neglected, c) that it's time
to re-shape the priorities, d) that all the other meteoriticists
agree with you, and d) beyond funding from the top, you
need for a groundwork for this change to be put in place.

   Oh, sure, you say, outline a lifetime's work! That's why
the suggestion to make this structural change would have
to come from a substantial segment of the scientific meteorite
community (distributes the work load and impresses the
authorities). Cultivate contacts with scientists in those
countries where they exist. Develop minor collaborative
efforts. Discuss the possibilities of future collaboration,
including joint efforts. Get them on-board and advocate
to their own ministries and government. Find a diplomat
who is (or was) a scientist, to pursue contact on a higher
but unofficial level, ending ideally in small memorandi of
understanding with the host country, before any specific
 project is proposed...

   It would take years. And I'm sure much of the above
is already being done, but not on a large, much less
transformational scale.

   On the other hand, given everything, it may be that the
meteorite science community, for the most part, PREFERS
to be a research-only discipline. Having been largely such
for the last thirty years, it may be that most of the members
of the profession are now of that persuasion. In which case,
these proposals for change are largely irrelevant, because
they're not wanted.

   And please, List, do not interpret my comments about
the profession as criticism. Many of the services they provide
to the meteorite community are unfunded by their institutions
and I have no doubt that they do much work "out of their own
pocket," in effect, on salaries that border on insult and budgets
that, like almost all science in this country, reflect a failure to
understand that healthy and vigorous sciences, ALL sciences,
is a long-term necessity for a country like ours.

   Before 1980, it may have seemed perfectly reasonable to
ignore the entire notion and do the research that needed to
be done. It didn't seem that to be field workers as well was
worthwhile; there was already a lot of meteorites, and most
of them still needed work done on them; no need to search
for more, something which didn't seem very promising, as
we grossly underestimated the amount of material awaiting
collection. But I sense a certain "itch" in at least some
professionals as they now watch what was an unexpected
river of meteorites go flowing by.

   Even so, the option does present itself of being economically
active in order to acquire more material from the now greatly
increased volume of meteoritic material flowing exclusively through
the commercial conduit. Of course, if you look down at the map
of this suggestion, you may find those squiggly lines that mark
the ground as "murky," to use your phrase.

   This means any economic mechanism to do so would be
as complex as any foreign diplomacy. Or, funding could
merely contain a component allowing a cost compensation
to staff who donate suitable material to the institution; it's
called an expense account, common in "the world," rare in
science. So the individual would dicker, maneuver, purchase
the material from Mr. Murky; the institution would have no
connection with the deal. In dealing for such stones, the astute
researcher would have real advantages in the bargaining; I see
lots of potential levers.

   But, barring SOME change, a research-only meteorite
science is doomed to stand on the banks of a now-flooded
river of meteorites without a fishing pole. And wait for a 20
gram snack from a guy who does have a fishing pole.

   As for the overseas end of the trade in meteorites and whether
it is conducted, as Jeff put it, "dare I say it, legally," well, I'll just
stick with "murky." A lots of those overseas localities themselves
seem "murky" to our eyes. But if "the playing field is not level,"
aren't you implying murkiness always has the advantage and usually
wins the day? A dreary prospect. I think non-murky methods
may be disadvantaged in some ways, yet possess certain
advantages murkiness can't access.

   Having no subscription to eBay Market Research, I guesstimate
that 35,000 to 40,000 "meteorites" per annum are sold on eBay.
(Currently 5000 to 6000 auctions per month times 12 divided by
2 to account for no-sales and re-listings.) Deciding how many
unique buyers that represents is much more difficult, but I would
think there would be at least 5000 repeat buyers (10-12 purchases
a year), so a cumulative number of 8000 "collectors" at a minimum
and as many one-time purchasers in the past near-decade of eBay
sales is possible. And that's only eBay, and largely only the USA.

   There might be as many as 100,000 to 150,000 items in private
hands. (From 0 in 1998 to 30,000 in 2006 averages = 15,000 times
9 years of eBay.) That could be exaggerated -- in either direction.
I'll bet that between 2000 and 2004, Dean Bessey had at least 30
thousand meteorite listings on eBay, auctions, store, website.
(I'm NOT asking, Dean, that's your business, not ours -- but
we still like to guess, just the same.) The phrase "river of
meteorites" seems justified. And even if it's "only" 50,000
or 80,000, that's still a boatload of meteorites...

   List members, what's your estimate? How many meteorites
in private hands?


Sterling K. Webb
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think my first post of this bounced -- too long with
reply to reply to reply. Try again after trimming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Grossman" <jgrossman_at_usgs.gov>
> To: "Meteorite List" <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 5:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] conflicting viewpoints
>
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> It is simply not true that scientists only collect meteorites in
>> Antarctica. I personally know of many scientific collecting expeditions,
>> including countries like Oman, Morocco, Mauritania, Libya, Niger, Egypt,
>> Saudi Arabia, Mongolia, Chile, Australia, and the US, all in the last 10
>> years, all done in cooperation with or by local institutions.
>>
>> What you have to remember is that there are political barriers for
>> outsiders who want to do official research in some of the most important
>> of these countries, whereas the countries themselves have few or no
>> scientists who work on things like meteorites. Probably two of the three
>> most important meteorite-producing countries on the list above are Libya
>> and Algeria, and I probably don't have to tell anybody why it has been
>> difficult for other countries to mount official expeditions to these
>> places (although there have been a few and things are slowly improving).
>> In contrast, there are now active, healthy scientific relationships
>> between the Omanis and foreign institutions resulting in many meteorite
>> finds. The same goes for Australia, where most of the Nullarbor
>> meteorites have been found by scientific expeditions.
>>
>> But private collectors have not faced these political barriers in places
>> that have proved difficult for scientists to penetrate, or at least they
>> have largely been able to avoid them. They do not need to go through
>> official diplomatic channels, or at least for the most part they have
>> avoided it. A passport, some money, the ability to endure harsh
>> conditions, and a willingness to take risks are what have given us many
>> desert finds by nonscientists. Some of this has been legal, some maybe
>> not, and a lot of it is murky. But murky is unacceptable for a foreign
>> scientist trying to raise money for an expedition.
>>
>> Could scientists have done more over the last 10 years to collect desert
>> meteorites themselves? Probably so. But the playing field is not level
>> between those who must do things openly, officially, and, dare I say it,
>> legally, as every university and museum must, and private collectors who
>> can fly by the seat of their pants.
>>
>> Jeff
Received on Mon 14 Aug 2006 09:54:15 PM PDT