The Dinosaur Feather

reasons.’
    Anna took a step towards her audience.
    ‘Firstly, it’s human to see what you want to see.’ Anna dearly wished she could look into her mother’s eyes, but Cecilie was lost in the darkness. ‘And in people’s minds, dinosaurs don’t have feathers as per previous definitions.The same conservatism applies to birds. Birds are unique and advanced, and every child can tell you they look nothing like dinosaurs. After all, they’re not big scary creatures with teeth!’
    A short burst of laughter from the hall.
    ‘The truth often lies elsewhere,’ she went on, ‘in the ground, from where it must be excavated, dusted down and interpreted as objectively as possible.’ She let the conclusion linger for a moment, and then she went on:
    ‘Secondly, there’s human obstinacy, here camouflaged as scientific prestige. The opposition and Professor Freeman, in particular, have obviously invested considerable resources in supporting a position, which at some stage has turned out to be scientifically untenable. Acknowledging that you were mistaken is no defeat. Acknowledging that you were wrong is to accept that you participate in a discipline called science, where the overall dynamic depends on scientists constantly proposing possible hypotheses and trying to support them with evidence and, more importantly, reject them when they can’t. Not to acknowledge this is, however, unscientific. Clive Freeman can maintain his position as much as he wants to, also for reasons which we cannot fathom, but he doesn’t have the right to call it science.
    ‘Thirdly, it’s about the communication of science, and this is closely related to status in science, as mentioned earlier. It’s one thing to understand Clive Freeman’s agenda, but if you really want to appreciate why a controversy like this one endures, you need to turn your eyes to the world in which research and science exist. It’s a world characterised by tough competition for scarce research grants, a world where themedia play a shockingly big role for scientists and consequently the quality of science.
    ‘Since the latter half of the twentieth century it has become customary to publicise scientific controversies, in order to make science accessible to the wider public. However, it’s my opinion that we are currently experiencing a shift in communication, where the interest in the content of a controversy has given way to a rise in interest in the feud itself. Everyone knows that Bjørn Lomborg argued with leading experts about the state of the earth, but how many lay people can explain the scientific arguments at the heart of that controversy, and how many understand its scientific implications, even though the media covered it extensively?’
    Anna looked at Dr Tybjerg and saw the pencil in his hand, which now rested in his lap.
    ‘And
why
has controversy suddenly become so attractive?’ she asked and turned up the light. It went very quiet, and Anna could now see Dr Tybjerg’s face clearly. He was smiling.
    ‘It sells tickets,’ Anna said. ‘It sells newspapers, it sells journals, and the pressure for profit also affects highly respected journals such as
Science
and
Scientific Today
, which increasingly regard the degree of controversy as their basis for selecting which papers to print, while ignoring the quality of those papers. Dinosaurs are “sexy” and the question of what became of them is glamorous. In the controversy surrounding the origin of birds, it seems to have created a co-dependent relationship between the opposition and the media, where each party needs the conflict because it sells, even though it means that an expert, such as Professor Freeman, is forced to defend a scientific position which isultimately indefensible.’ Anna found Karen’s admiring gaze in the hall.
    ‘Research grants are awarded by people who also read newspapers, journals and watch television. Big headlines and extensive media coverage can easily give the impression that the feud is important. Bitter rows between highly qualified scientists sell and, in my view, the opposition has exploited that. Publicity leads to media coverage, and media coverage leads to grants. You can think what you like, but you can’t call it science.’
    The hall was very quiet.
    ‘Thank you,’ Anna said and closed her laptop.
    Everyone clapped.
    Dr Tybjerg rose and started examining her. A young professor from the University of Århus assisted him and an external examiner,