[meteorite-list] Technical question about NomCom and Bulletin

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 20:50:55 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTilV8h52wUF7jErGgk5dlKW9npplVDloGzhK8Za8_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hence what I said:

"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."

You might try reading what I write before criticizing it...it seems to
be a common problem on this list.

> Perhaps a note in the sideline
> that the country of origin prohibits export would be enough to let the buyer
> beware.

I hardly think that such a note would be adequate, but perhaps that
would be a good starting point.
Something is better than nothing, after all, though I would still
advocate a system that was much more thorough - the more information,
the better...at least so long as the program is still plausible.
Regards,
Jason

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 8:29 PM, David Norton <renov8hotels at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Issues I see as relevant are the tracking of a stone at all times; it is
> only "illegal" if removed from a country that prohibits export. What happens
> to a strewn field that straddles the borders of 2 countries, one that allows
> export, one that does not? Many countries have variances to laws. Labeling a
> stone "illegal" without understanding the true status of every stone could
> carry some legal liability.
> A stone from a country that prohibits export is "legal" while it is in the
> country. It should be recorded in MetBul. Perhaps a note in the sideline
> that the country of origin prohibits export would be enough to let the buyer
> beware. Perhaps publishing a summary list of countries that prohibit export
> would acknowledge any potential problems with purchase out of the country.
> Again, the issue of using the scientific community to acknowledge any given
> stone in an effort to increase its value is commerce / marketing. I say let
> politicians be politicians, cops be cops and scientists be scientists.
> Have a great evening all!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jason Utas
> Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 7:57 PM
> To: Meteorite-list
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Technical question about NomCom and Bulletin
>
> Hello David, All,
> I agree - perhaps it shouldn't be their responsibility.
> Perhaps the person submitting the stone should be the person to submit
> the information...if they could be trusted with such a task.
> But I disagree with your statement that it is scientifically
> irrelevant. ?If an institution or museum is looking to acquire a piece
> of a given meteorite, they oftentimes want to know if what they're
> getting was legally exported. ?And since they're the people doing most
> of the analytical work on meteorites, and the ones who store samples
> for future research, I would say that this is *very* scientifically
> relevant information.
> Making this information public would facilitate that and resolve the
> issues that Martin brought up.
>
> And it really wouldn't be *that* much work. ?Initially, yes, I agree -
> sorting out the laws for previously found meteorites would take quite
> a bit of asking around and some research. ?But once you knew what
> current laws were/are....there aren't that many meteorites being found
> in different countries every year. ?Ok, so you have a few hundred from
> the various deserts around the world. ?After that, it's just sporadic
> falls and finds - a very manageable amount of work if we deem the
> legality of a given stone to be important. ?Perhaps the best answer
> would be to start doing it for new meteorites, and work slowly
> backwards through previous falls and finds. ?It would be something of
> a job, but something that probably wouldn't require much more than a
> bunch of emails and phone calls, and some research if that didn't
> resolve things.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 7:46 PM, David Norton <renov8hotels at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> I don't think the NomCom, bulletin or any other scientific organization
> has
>> the time, manpower or expertise to decipher international / national laws
>> and make any kind of opinion on the legality of a given stone. Your
> position
>> would require knowing who "exported" the stone and to whom it is currently
>> owned. That information has no place in the repository of scientific data.
>> Let the data be published with location and finder as it should. If it is
>> moved after the find, legally or illegally, it is only the business of the
>> local authorities and the buyers/sellers. NomCom, bulletin etc. is not in
>> the business of validating a stone for market demand. This discussion
> blurs
>> the lines between commerce, science and international law.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
>> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Jason
> Utas
>> Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 7:33 PM
>> To: Meteorite-list
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Technical question about NomCom and Bulletin
>>
>> 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
>>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________
> 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 11:50:55 PM PDT