[meteorite-list] conflicting viewpoints

From: E.P. Grondine <epgrondine_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue Aug 15 10:39:03 2006
Message-ID: <20060814160742.11506.qmail_at_web36903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi all -

Given the market prices, I wonder why the academic
institutions and academic departments in Libya,
Algeria, Morocco, etc. have not turned to meteorite
hunting as a source of funds.

Possibly the answer lies in the skills required for
searching - the eyesight, the concentration, the
identitfication, and just the plain old obsession
required for it.

While the USGS plays a role, they have a lot to do.
One might think that the task would be part of NASA's
mandate, but what NASA really does is buy rockets. The
lunar meteorite/Apollo samples cost comparison is
interesting, now extend that to consider the case for
Mars sample return samples.

All in all, maybe the situation as it exists, what has
happened, is optimal, and perhaps the free market is
the best way to go here.

It is certain that Bob Haag played his role.

just some thoughts in the night,
Ed

--- "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb_at_sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> Hi, List, Dr. Hutson,
>
>
>
> > It is true that many meteorites have been found
> > by dealers/hunters that would have just sat on the
> > ground otherwise, as scientists do not go out
> > into the field to search for meteorites (with the
> > exception of Antarctica).
>
> If it is true that "scientists do not go out
> into the field
> to search for meteorites," then the word you are
> looking for
> is "all" rather than "many."
>
> Setting Antarctica aside for the moment, we see
> academic
> geologists go out into the field for data, academic
> paleontologists
> go out into the field for data, academic
> paleoanthropologists
> go out into the field for data, as well as academic
> anthropologists
> of the living humans, academic social scientists go
> out into the
> field for data, whether it's The 'Hood or the rain
> forest, academic
> astronomers go out into the field for data and build
> there multi-
> billion dollar observatories to collect that data,
> academic
> oceanographers and marine biologists go out into the
> field
> for data, which field is an ocean replete with
> storms, danger,
> and a lot of vomiting -- I could stretch this list
> out for a page,
> but I won't.
>
> So, pray tell, WHY do academic meteoriticists
> NOT go out into
> the field for data? Do paleoanthropologists sit in
> their labs waiting
> for someone to bring by the missing link to be
> classified? Does the
> anthropologist wait for some stranger to drag in a
> pygmy? And so
> forth, for another equally long list... The answer,
> naturally, is "No."
>
> They are the ones that know; they are the ones
> that go.
>
> Surely, you would not stipulate that private
> individuals, dealers,
> collectors, lay-persons, are better qualified,
> better trained, more
> skilled, better working SCIENTISTS in the field than
> those whose
> academic area of study, specialty, lifelong object
> of knowledge,
> is meteorites?
>
> OK, at this point, I lift my foot from the
> throttle... There are
> research scientists and field scientists,
> theoretical physicists and
> experimental physicists, lab people and field
> people, thinkers
> and doers, mentational scholars and scholars who
> like to dig in
> the blazing desert at 120 degrees, whether it's for
> ancient man in
> the Afar or a chunk of the Moon in Oman, but...
>
> I have listened to (OK, read) this same argument
> on this List for
> years, with the same things being said over and over
> again. Everybody
> is missing the point. Step back and look again. The
> mighty-meteorite-
> hunter, dealer, merchant, collector hierarchical
> network has grown
> up because there is a glaring structural deficiency
> in science. In
> non-academic terms, there is a big hole and people
> will fill it, an
> empty gap into which human activity has poured, as
> it always
> has and always will.
>
> This is a structural problem, people, nothing
> more. The one field
> of academic scientific study among many that deals
> with physically
> real objects from all over the universe, be they
> fossils, other humans,
> rare species of other natural life, continents,
> mountains and oceans,
> or galaxies far away, that never leaves the lab to
> look at, or look for,
> the object of their study is... the academic
> scientific study of meteorites.
>
> It is a scientific field of study with a
> research pole and no field
> pole, like a magnetic monopole of the knowledge biz.
> The Indiana
> Jones of Meteorites who puts on all that khaki and
> jumps on a plane
> bound for God Knows Where at the first news of a
> confirmed fall
> is not a mild mannered professor in real life,
> because...? Because
> there are NO professors that do that. So instead
> private individuals,
> be they businessmen or enthusiasts or both, do that.
> Whose "fault"
> is that? "Look not to the heavens, Horatio, the
> fault lies in our
> academic structural problem."
>
> There once WERE academic professorial meteorite
> field
> scientists: H. H. Nininger (who was a professor who
> quit his
> college to chase meteorites), Kulik who went back
> and back into
> Siberia until he found Tunguska, Krinov, Lincoln
> LaPaz, all
> academics, all both researchers AND field workers.
> But no
> longer. Or at least, very little, for the last half
> century.
>
> OK, time to drag Antarctica back into the
> discussion. Yes,
> almost as many Antarctic meteorites as the rest of
> the world's
> collection. Is this the missing field science of
> meteorites?
> Yes and no. 1.) No falls, just finds. 2.)
> Cryodynamics collects
> the meteorites and piles them up in one place; if
> the climate
> were benign you could send bright teenagers to
> collect them
> (if there were any bright teenagers) or grad
> students. It's like
> shooting fish in a very cold barrel, though. 3.)
> Antarctica, in
> theory a sacred preserve for all mankind where
> national claims
> are not allowed, is in reality restricted to the
> activities of (big)
> nations and only to activities of a national
> character: top-down,
> institutional, bureaucratic, official. Antarctica's
> meteorites
> are national, institutional, official property, a
> world apart.
>
> In effect, institutional science has staked its
> exclusive claim
> to Antarctic meteorites and renounced its claim to
> do field work
> anywhere else, renounced its claim to the rest of
> the world by
> its behavior: it doesn't hunt meteorites in the rest
> of the world,
> only in Antarctica. This is a totally artificial
> (and gently loony)
> dichotomy.
>
> Science has chosen only to hunt for meteorites
> in a place
> over which official institutions have full and
> authoritarian
> control and "science" has no competition, where
> collecting
> is the easiest (calculate numbers of meteorites
> found, divide by
> collector-days = by far the easiest pickings ever),
> where science's
> possession of the desired object is exclusive,
> private, and total,
> like a certain "my precious." Sometimes that can be
> bad for you...
>
> If that sounds harsh, why then is it also true?
> If scientists
> don't feel that way at all, oh, no, why has it
> happened?
>
> > most public repositories (museums and
> universities) don't
> > have funds to purchase samples, and so cannot
> compete
> > with dealers when a fresh fall occurs.
>
> If there is no money in the budget of ANY
> institution that
> does meteorite science to go pick up a meteorite
> when it falls,
> in Norway or Nevada, why not?
>
> The Geology department gets money to go gawk at
> a new
> volcano or scrape at the K-T boundary, right? Those
> weirdo's
> over in Anthro get to go to Pacific islands and live
> with the
> natives (all in the interest of science, yeah)?
> There's money
> in the budget for folks, er, scientists to hang out
> with cool
> dolphins, undoubtedly?
>
> All I can say, if it is true that there is no
> money in any
> budget of any institution of meteoritic science
> anywhere
> to recover a fresh fall when it happens, then you
> guys are
> getting snookered, because all the other scientists
> are getting
> money to go into the field for their object of
> study, whatever
> it is. ("Ma! All the OTHER scientists are doing
> it!")
>
> Does nobody ever think of it? Dies nobody ever
> ask for
> the money? Does nobody ever try to sweat together a
> funding
> package? Everybody in science does that. Is all that
> anybody
> can think of is to ask to be remembered in some
> collector's
> will? What is meteorite science? Public Radio?
>
> Buying a fresh fall from the finder is best
> price but a poor
> choice. A dealer who buys a fresh fall is paying the
> lowest price
> that meteorite will ever have, at least within a
> near 3-5 year horizon;
> in the long run, it is ALWAYS the cheapest price.
> Esquel?
> The finder will sell it, at a profit, to somebody
> who will cut it
> and re-sell it, at a profit, to others, etc. A
> dealer who re-sells
> for less will not be a dealer for too long unless
> his personal
> pockets are very deep indeed. So, a dealer-finder
> price is the
> lowest price. But of course, if you are on the
> ground and you
> find the meteorite instead of the dealer, you don't
> have to pay
> anything to anybody, just the expenses of finding
> it.
>
> And there is no reason to restrict academic
> meteorite
> recovery to "fresh falls" alone, although they may
> be
> preferred. Science could "settle" for a nice Lunar
> even
> if it had a few years on it... And how much would it
> have cost for an academic team to have done in
> Kansas
> the work that Steve Arnold did? Are there no
> academics
> in Kansas?
>
> "Public repositories (museums and universities)"
> do
> spend money. I know they do; I've seen it happen
> quite
> a lot. Academic institutions paid me salaries (not
> enough of
> course) for a good long while, so you know they're
> not
> THAT picky as to how they spend their money.
>
> Therefore, when one says they "don't have funds
> to purchase" this or that particular thing, that
> statement
> is, strictly speaking, false. The true form of the
> statement is
> that they "don't choose to spend any of the money
> they
> have and DO spend" on meteorite recovery, sample
> acquisition, nor any meteoritic endeavor, other than
> for
> the electricity to run the lights in the cases in
> the museum.
>
> Now, you can't wait for the idea of spending
> money that
> way to magically pop into the head of one or more
> car-dealing
> board members, enigmatic deans, or even university
> presidents,
> all praise be unto them. That's not going to happen,
> not before
> the heat death of the universe, anyway. That's just
> not the
> way it happens.
>
> You don't think the thought of spending money on
> the
> field necessities of geologists, anthropologists,
> astronomers,
> sprouted spontaneously in the brains of academic
> governance,
> do you? No, it was a cash crop, planted by and
> nurtured to
> some lengthy maturity by, guess who? Those same
> geologists,
> anthropologists, astronomers, etc. who get to spend
> all that
> money (it's not enough of course). And of course,
> not all that
> money is the institution's money; a good funding
> package
> has its hands in lots of pockets.
>
> I'm already writing the proposal in my head,
> well, thinking
> of good arguments to make. The funding is continual,
> the
> occasion to use the money is unpredictable and
> sudden,
> not scheduled. Therefore by allocating money in
> smaller
> increments (against a draw if not fully funded) to
> take
> advantage of a new fall, the money remains until the
> world
> provides occasion to use it (meanwhile drawing
> interest,
> dividends, etc.) It's not the same as sending five
> members
> of the Geology Dept. to crawl through fumaroles in
> Iceland
> this summer; you know that money is gone... And
> airlines
> and Icelandic bartenders are richer thereby.
>
> The PR potential is great. What institution that
> studies
> meteorites also finds them? None. It's a first (if
> it happened).
> I pity the academic institution whose press office
> couldn't
> make a lot of mileage with that.
>
> Add eight more good reasons and the "secrets of
> the
> universe" and you're there.
>
> I assume that nothing like this has ever
> happened because
> nobody made it happen or wanted it to happen,
> strange as
> that may seem.
>
> OK, here's another proposal. Fund a national
> initiative to
> prepare, develop and staff one or two Meteorite
> Recovery
> Teams drawn from a consortium of academic
> institutions
> of meteoritics, universities, museums, you pick'em.
> The
> funding? Well, you know that 20 grams everybody
> coughs
> up for classification? Sell to the public, at a very
> measured
> pace, a 20 gram sample of each of the tens of
> thousands
> of National Antarctic meteorites over 2 kilo mass --
> 1%.
> Minimum bid $5000 to $10,000? (And, heck, the 20
> grams
> could be from material ALREADY cut and researched to
> death). That would pay for an incredible amount of
> field
> work. Get a Congressman to slip a rider into the
> defense
> appropriations that mandates that the Air Force will
> fly the
> MRT to every fresh fall on a priority basis...
>
> Look at the history. Before 1970, meteorites
> were the
> only samples of extraterrestrial material we had.
> Not so
> after 1970. Meteoritic field work on the planet as a
> whole
> and performed by science pretty much ceases after
> 1970.
> Science just ceases to do it. For whatever reason.
> (Later,
> science sets up a closed shop in Antarctica.)
>
> The private commercial meteorite market in 1970
> was
> minute and trivial, probably on a lesser scale than
> it had
> been in the old heyday of Ward's Scientific, perhaps
> at
> a century-long low. The number of meteorite
> collectors
> in the USA was dwarfed by, say, the number of
> collectors
> of moustache cups in Iowa. Today, there are articles
> in
> trendy magazines about meteorites -- in terms of
> finance,
> as a market. The "B" word is bandied about.
>
> I do not think these changes are co-incidental,
> but related.
> At this point, I am also not sure that these changes
> could
> ever be reversed, given the magnitude of the change.
> But
> assuredly, science is doing nothing to change it
> back nor
> alter the balance.
>
> The actual cost of lunar material retrieved by
> Saturn V
> Apollo rocket system from the Moon was about $12,500
> per gram if you count retrieving it as the sole
> objective of
> the flight. "Science" was willing to pay that, or
> someone
> with big bucks was. The American People? Lunar
> material
> as lunaites costs less now. All that has changed is
> the
> willingness of government, or science, or society,
> or
> academic institutions to pay for it. Individuals,
> many of
> whom are members of that same American People
> mentioned above, apparently ARE willing to pay for
> it.
>
> Should that be the state of affairs? I leave
> that question
> to philosophers, politicians, and all who want to
> ponder it.
> Is that the state of affairs? Absolutely. Did it
> come about
> as the result of what scientific institutions as a
> whole did
> or didn't do? I believe so. Science moved on to the
> Big
> Show: Moon Rocks, Missions, a Presence in the
> Prestige
> Pool of Antarctica -- all terribly important, yes,
> -- but
> science let the meteorites fall where they may.
>
> All that has changed is who is now willing to
> pay for them.
> One either changes that or lives with it.
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mhutson_at_pdx.edu>
> To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 3:37 PM
> Subject: [meteorite-list] conflicting viewpoints
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > This is in response to the posting "Stop thieves!
> Meteorite marauders of
> > Norway!" by Michael Mazur. In his posting, Mr.
> Mazur says "There aren't
> > many
> > of us but I'd like to think that we're not
> thieves who don't care about
> > science as is implied by the article. If you
> disagree with Elen's
> > proposal,
> > maybe a gentle note explaining how you think
> meteorite collectors and
> > dealers
> > can and do help science would be a good idea."
> >
> > I am a scientist, not a collector or a dealer, and
> I see a bit of both
> > sides of
> > this issue. It is true that many meteorites have
> been found by
> > dealers/hunters
> > that would have just sat on the ground otherwise,
> as scientists do not go
> > out
> > into the field to search for meteorites (with the
> exception of
> > Antarctica). It
> > is also true that in general, a type specimen of
> each meteorite is
> > deposited in
> > a repository during classification, making this
> material available to
> > scientists for research. I say "in general",
> because some of the
> > repositories
> > are private collections and it is not clear that
> this material will be
> > available to scientists in the future.
> >
> > So why aren't scientists jumping up and down in
> happiness. Well, for one
> > thing,
> > not all of the material that is found will ever be
> seen by a scientist. A
> > lot
> > of meteorites are being sold without being
> classified. I've received more
> > than
> > one request from a person who bought a meteorite
> off of e-bay with a
> > provisional
> > NWA number, who wants their sample classified. As
> these are whole stones,
> > with
> > no material missing, it is clear that someone
> requested a provisional
> > number,
> > just for the purpose of being able to sell a
> "named meteorite". Some of
> > these
> > may not even be meteorites. Additionally,
> scientists aren't happy about
> > the
> > current system because some of the
> dealers/collectors have been known to
> > lie
> > about important information (such as when and
> where a sample was
> > collected).
> > Also, most public repositories (museums and
> universities) don't have funds
> > to
> > purchase samples, and so cannot compete with
> dealers when a fresh fall
> > occurs.
> > It is important to study fresh falls quickly,
> before they've experienced
> > significant terrestrial weathering. While some
> dealers/collectors are
> > very
> > generous about donating substantial amounts of
> material to an institution
> > for
> > study, others are very reluctant to give even the
> minimum 20 grams require
> > by
> > the Nomenclature Committee. For large-scale
> breccias (think Portales
> > Valley),
> > a 20 gram sample gives a very misleading view of
> the entire meteorite.
> > Also,
> > as many analytical techniques are destructive; if
> only 20 grams is
> > available to
> > scientists (who can't afford to buy samples), then
> that sample is unlikely
> > to be
> > thoroughly studied.
> >
> > Finally, private collections can be lost when the
> collector dies. I
> > recently
> > had someone come in with a fist-sized piece of
> Canyon Diablo that they had
> > bought for $3 at a garage sale. It had no
> information - the people
> > selling the
> > meteorite weren't even aware that it was a
> meteorite. It had obviously
> > come
> > from someone's collection. Also, recently a
> private collector here in
> > Oregon
> > died unexpectedly, without leaving a will. He was
> a bachelor with no
> > close
> > relatives. One of the dealers from whom he had
> purchased meteorites was
> > aware
> > that the man had wanted to leave his collection to
> a museum. Distant
> > relatives
> > called me in to help identify samples. The
> samples had gotten jumbled and
> > separated from the labels, I suspect when the
> relatives were looking
> > through
> > the samples. The collector had a catalog (without
> photographs), and we
> > were
> > able to match most of the samples to the
> descriptions in the catalog,
> > although
> > a handful of samples remained unidentified. The
> collector's relatives
> > then
> > sold off all of the material. They may or may not
> have included correct
> > information with the samples.
> >
> > So, I suspect that unless ALL dealers become more
> generous with the amount
> > of
> > samples they donate (particularly for falls - to
> local institutions), they
> > will
> > find that more and more countries are going to
> place restrictions on the
> > ability
> > of dealers/hunters to purchase or collect samples.
> Unfortunately, it only
> > takes
> > one or two "bad apples" to give all dealers a bad
> reputation.
> >
> > And if you are a collector who values your
> collection and doesn't want to
> > see
> > your material broken or sliced up and sold on
> e-bay, then you should write
> > a
> > will, directing what should happen to your
> collection when you die. If
> > you
> > intend to leave your material to an institution,
> you should leave a copy
> > of
> > your will with someone (curator?) at that
> institution. And you shouldn't
> > wait.
> > While we would all like to die of old age,
> accidents happen.
> >
> >
> > Melinda Hutson, curator
> > Cascadia Meteorite Laboratory
> > Portland State University
> > Department of Geology
> > 17 Cramer Hall, 1721 SW Broadway
> > Portland OR 97207-0751
> > Phone: 503-725-3372
> > Fax: 503-725-3025
> > ______________________________________________
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> >
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Mon 14 Aug 2006 12:07:42 PM PDT