[meteorite-list] Technical question about NomCom and Bulletin

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:33:07 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinv8fwfql8Vvcbm47-rHrYkgiEYvV-daXWbLqB4_at_mail.gmail.com>

Martin, Carl, All,

As I said in my last post, I would suggest that the Meteoritical
Society simply make a note of which meteorites have been illegally
exported from their respective countries. This information could then
be added to the meteorite's published set of information. That way,
collectors and dealers would be able to make an informed decision as
to whether or not they wanted to buy or sell such specimens, and no
information would be hidden.

Yes, it would take a great deal of research to figure out all of the
current international laws, etc. - but at least then, we would have an
accurate picture of which meteorites being bought and sold on the
market were technically legal to purchase, etc. It would undoubtedly
be useful in resolving the issues that Martin brings up - while he may
disagree with the laws themselves, they still exist, and since neither
the Nomenclature Committee nor the Meteoritical Society have any legal
sway in the matter, this would seem to be the best way to go about
things.

Publish the scientific information, make a note if the stone is
illegal (or just have a yes/no section for legally or illegally
exported), and move on. For meteorites like, say, Henbury, where
older specimens were legally exported, but newer ones might not be,
the write-up could say "varies with specimen" or something along those
lines to denote the fact that its legal status might be ambiguous.

Regards,
Jason

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Martin Altmann
<altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Sun 06 Jun 2010 10:33:07 PM PDT