1. Brief synopsis of the Piltdown Hoax, how it was discovered and the responses by scientists.
In 1912 an English amateur fossil hunter by the name of Charles Dawson claimed to have found what many scientists were looking for… the ‘missing link’ between humans and apes near the town of Piltdown in Great Britain. The findings were a partial skull, jawbone and teeth.
While many countries like Germany and France
had already announced human fossil findings, England had not been able to make
such a claim. Dawson, not being an
expert in the field, consulted the leading English geologist in the field of
fish fossils Arthur Smith Woodward to verify his findings. Another expert,
French Paleontologist Father Pierre de Chardin was also consulted. The trio
concluded that the skull found by Dawson was in fact an ancestor of the human
race.
Woodward, being the most credible in the field
made the announcement to an overwhelmingly proud country and an even more
encouraged scientific community. From
within this community scientist Arthur Keith was the Dawson’s biggest supporter
simply because the skull proved his own theory that human had a bigger size
brain before they started being bipedal.
Other scientists were either not asked or not able to speak up due to the national importance this announcement brought to England.
Another scientist, Martin Hinton, who was
working under Woodward and volunteered at the National History museum helped
Dawson find more fossils in the same area in England. Any doubts or skepticism by
fellow scientists were not voiced until about 20 years later, when skulls in
Asia and Africa were found. These skulls did not resemble the Piltdown skull at all.
The Natural History Museum restricted
examinations of the Piltdown bones very well as they were under lock and key after Dawson passed away in 1916. However, in 1949 a Florine test
revealed that the remains were barely 100, 000 years old.
Just 4 years later further tests concluded that
all stains found on the skull were artificially made by using a steel knife.
Additionally it was concluded that the shortened teeth on the skull were filed
down by hand and the findings were concluded to be fraudulent and a huge
scientific hoax. The skull actually was determined to be that of a female
Orangutan years later.
Dawson, who had died by than was considered the
key suspect in the fraud. His ambition and desire to be part of the royal
circle were named as possible motivation. Woodward was suspected as well, but
since he continued searching for other fossils at the same time was not so much
seen as a co-conspirator, but a fellow fooled scientist. Father Chardin joined
the trio too late to be the originator of the fraud. The only other scientist that would have had
a personal gain from the fraud was Arthur Keith, as the skull confirmed his
theory and gave him credibility. Not a suspect at the time was the volunteer
from the Natural History Museum Martin Hinton. However, a trunk was found in
his house in 1996 and it contained fossils that had the same chemical markings
that the Piltdown skull had shown. However, it is unknown if Hinton was involved
or if he tried to prove that Dawson was a fraud. Nobody was ever named the key
suspect and it appears that it was a collaboration of many.
2.
What human faults come into play here in this scenario and how did these faults
negatively impact the scientific process?
The human factor in this scenario was Dawson’s
ambition to be an acknowledged scientist and as such would have climbed up the
social ladder in the English society.
Arthur’s Keith had the motivation to get his own findings verified and
thus supported Dawson. The person
announcing the findings, Arthur Smith Woodward, gained scientific prestige. The main human factor though were the other
scientists, who were skeptic but kept quiet. At the time this all happened the
different countries were not working together at all and Great Britain felt a
great deal of jealousy towards countries that had been able to report major
findings or breakthroughs in the scientific field. Which human would stand in
front of his fellow countrymen and express doubt about ‘the’ finding of the
country?
3. What
positive aspects of the scientific process were responsible for revealing the
skull to be a fraud?
The first test shaking the foundation of the
validity of the findings was conducted in 1943 when a scientist by the name of Oakley developed
a method that would enable him to test the remains for fluorides, which are
absorbed by bones from the soil and water they are surrounded by. Thus the jawbone,
teeth and the skull, belonging to the
same person and being in the same are for the same amount of time should have
had the same fluoride readings, which they did. However, the bones were deemed
to be no more than 50,000 years old, which even if they were would not match
already existing and verified human bones in structures or shapes.
Oakley discussed his findings rather casually
with a fellow colleague, Joseph Weiner of Oxford University and though Weiner
did not have access to the actual artifacts, he studied the photographs of the
teeth. He urged Oakley to examine the teeth with a microscope on site and look
for specific markings he believed to have seen on the images. Oakley, being one
of the limited scientists with access to the remains, confirmed Weiner’s
suspicions that the teeth were in fact cut down to make them look more like human teeth. Recent DNA tests showed that the remains were that of a female Orangutan and all markings making it a mix between apes and humans were artificially added.
4. Is
it possible to remove the ‘human’ factor from science to reduce the chance of
errors like this happening again? Would you want to remove the human factor
from science?
I don’t think it is possible to remove the
human factor from science. This will give plenty of room for errors like the
Piltdown Hoax to repeat itself. However, the world is a lot more skeptical,
outspoken and technologically advanced.
The human factor is necessary to find fossils and other scientific
wonders as no ‘machine’ could ever do that. Ambition, as misguided as it can
be, is still necessary to push the limits of what is out there already.
Question what is out there and search for what has not been found yet. Be it an undiscovered star, an unknown piece by Leonardo DaVinci or a new life form. A human may find it, but science will hopefully be able to verify or deny its authenticity.
5.
Life Lesson: What lesson can you take from this historical event regarding taking
information at face value from unverified sources?
I believe the biggest lesson is to always be
skeptical. To not be afraid to speak up and to question what is not clear,
especially when you are an expert in the field. A layman may have to take
things at face value simply because they don’t know any better. The hoax has shown to the world, that ANYBODY
is capable of lying to advance themselves, even scientists who until then were
considered to be gentleman and scholars and above any such acts.