[meteorite-list] Technical question about NomCom and Bulletin

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 20:05:18 +0200
Message-ID: <004301cb05a2$d64d6bb0$6502a8c0_at_name86d88d87e2>

Hello Jeff,

many thanks for your disclosure,
now I'm eased again.

My discussion contribution would read:

It is certainly a difficult question, which position the MetSoc should take
up regarding the legal issues of meteorites.

But in my personal opinion, that question arises not yet.

I think MetSoc should proceed step by step.

So far, there you're awfully right - the debate is characterized by a lack
of information and often sole hearsay.

Without a very few very striking examples, e.g. Australia, it is not yet
known, whether and which laws do exist in the different countries,
cause the subject is somewhat marginal and exotic.

(Who, even in the Philippines, would know, that the dictator Marcos once
decreed a complete export ban for all meteorites, tektites, impact glasses
of the Philippines in 1974? And who would know, whether this decree is still
valuable after the revolution?).

So firstly MetSoc would need exact and backed-up information of the factual
legal situation in each country.
Before they would have to worry, how to handle these cases.

That process will certainly take several years.


And it could have a very positive side effect,
because the two greatest biases of our times would be disposed of once and
of all.

1) The rumour that the 1970 UNESCO convention would a priori and per se
cover all meteorites.

2) That NWA meteorites would be illegal.

That would mean an immense relief for the research institutes and
institutional collections.

With the UNESCO-complex there is the problem, that once there was that
indefensible interpretation published, also in MAPS.
And as it was the one and only paper about meteorite laws and MAPS isn't
peer reviewed, it was multiplied unproven since.

The fulltext of the UNESCO convention is crystal-clear.

It delegates the question, what for items and of which type they have to be
to be a heritage clearly to the individual nations.
If meteorites aren't listed explicitly in the respectively national
heritage-lists - like Australia for instance did - they are not protected by
the convention.

Very logically, it makes no sense to protect on the US-American or German
UNESCO-heritage lists e.g. Aboriginal Arts, because they don't had
Aborigines (else than the strange Bavarians), neither Israel needs to set
meteorites on their UNESCO-list, as there never was found one.

(Also in the catalogue of suggestions for items of possible national
heritage in the convention, there are no meteorites to be found.
Only mineral samples as part of existing scientific collections.
A new meteorite find usually doesn't become part of an existing collection
as early than the deposit specimen is handed in for the classification.
And then only the very specimen, not the whole find would be covered - but
as told, only if "meteorites" are given in the individual heritage list of
the individual country).


Second prejudice is that NWAs would be illegal.


In my eyes it would be the perfect job for the Ethics Working Group of
MetSoc, to find out the factual legal situations in the different countries,
as basics for any further debate.

One could have the opinion, that the manning of the Ethics Groups was
somewhat unbalanced - but I think, especially in the general topics UNESCO
and NWA they are downright predestined for that task.
(if the manning wasn't changed meanwhile and if I'm correctly informed).

Because one member was already occupied with the UNESCO convention, as he
was the author of the above mentioned article.

Three more members were the organizers of the MetSoc workshop in Casablanca
in Morocco.
One result of the workshop was the detection, that there are no legal
regulations regarding meteorites in Morocco at all
and that result was later published in MAPS too.

And one of them held also a lecture in Morocco, where the member arrogates,
that a complete export ban for scientific interesting meteorites must be
created in Morocco.

Therefore all three do know and are aware, that NWAs are perfectly legal.


Before I'll be accused of digression:

First sentence of the self-manifestation of MetSoc is:
"..to promote the study of extraterrestrial materials..".

The terms "UNESCO" and consequently "UNIDROIT" set off the alarm bells at
any curator. The big institutes and museums around the world are plastered
at present with claims of restitution on the arts, fossils, antique and
artefacts sector.
Thanks God those countries, who'd have already the legal means hadn't the
idea yet to claim the return of their meteorites from those countries, where
meteorites are listed in the heritage lists.

So it should be the interest of MetSoc finally to come to a clarification.

Well, and the NWA-problem or non-problem.
Without question NWA is in our times by far the largest field MetSoc has to
deal with, larger than Antarctica.

Each collector and dealer trading with museums and institutes has certainly
already made that experience:

Several curators of universities and museums, also some very important
collections among them, are meanwhile so alienated by the rumours and
hearsay about NWA being illegal, that they don't dare to acquire them
anymore.

That strongly afflicts their scientific work and their curatorial mandate
their collections got from the public.

These institutes unnecessarily don't profit from the immense wealth and the
minimal costs of the NWA meteorites.

Examples? If they want to work on short-lived nucleides, they have to wait
for and to pay 40$ a gram for an Ash Creek, a Whetstone, a Wisconsin instead
being able to take one of the fresh Maghreb falls at 1-3$/g.

If they want to work on a new HED, they have to wait, until an eucrite is
found or falls in a liberal country - last one was Lapice at 500-800$ a
gram,
instead to work at the full choice of NWA-HEDs, usually been sold at
5-15$/g.
On Martians they can work only on LA
And for lunars they have to wait another 200 years, until once one will be
found in a still free country.

And that in times, when so many curators bemoan the shortage of their
acquisition budgets! Remember tax money is lent money...

The very most institutes have no possibilities to acquire legal ownership on
Antarctic meteorites.
The procurement costs for meteorites found by public funded expeditions are
exponentially higher than the costs for NWA. See e.g. the former EUROMET
expeditions.

So this misconception about the legal status of NWA causes a remarkable
damage.
Therefore a clarification by the MetSoc would be desirable.

And that problem is very real.

One example you saw here on the list, when Peter wrote.
How surprised he was, that NWAs are perfectly legal!
He wrote, that he will check that back and then he will start to acquire
NWAs for his museum.

Because I was curious, whether there would be any reason for this
misconception in U.K. I checked the Holy Meteorite Temple of London.
If one asks at the BMNH, whether they would purchase or swap NWAs (in past
they did), one gets the answer - that that wouldn't be possible, because it
would be against their policy.

So I checked the ?Curatorial Policies & Collections Management Procedures?
of the BMNH - here they are.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources-rx/files/life-earth-sciences-18441.pdf

I couldn't find therein any single obstacle, which would exclude the
acquisition of NWAs.
On contrary, seen the objectives of the policy it seems somewhat
counterproductive to abstain from NWAs.

(It is a little bit strange, that the responsible curator at BMNH seems not
to know that - as a member of the Ethics Working Group and as an organizer
of the Casablanca Workshop.... But not my cup of tea.)

So the gaps in the great institutional collections grow larger and larger
every month; they miss out many of the most important meteorites of our
times and some of the most important finds in history.


Back. My personal opinion is: MetSoc by virtue of the Ethics Working Group
should diligently and accurately find out the legal situation in the
countries of the world first.
Afterwards MetSoc still can think, what that could mean for their work
and could draft a statement.


Best!
Martin




-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jeff
Grossman
Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Juni 2010 13:57
An: Meteorite-list
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Technical question about NomCom and Bulletin

Martin and list,

No, votes do not have to be unanimous. No meteorite has even been
rejected on this basis. There are ongoing discussions both within the
nomenclature committee and between the committee and council about
ethical issues like this, and I would characterize several committee
members as "deeply concerned." But right now, it has not affected the
operations of the committee.

I think it would be a good discussion topic for the List. Some
questions could be, "Is it ethical for the Meteoritical Society to
approve and publish the names and data about meteorites for which there
may be doubt -- or just lack of information -- about whether they were
legally removed from their country of origin? Does such endorsement and
publication potentially provide some degree of support for illegal
activity?"

These are not easy questions. Note that the activities of the Society
only involve dissemination of information... the Society does not buy,
sell, or trade meteorites, nor directly support research done on them.
It is also a non-profit organization in the US with unpaid board and
committee members.

I would be glad to answer questions, but I will not participate in any
discussion on the List. I will listen.

Jeff
Received on Sun 06 Jun 2010 02:05:18 PM PDT