Aetogate: what professional palaeontologists are saying

Fri Jun 6 23:01:33 BST 2008


The original complaints in what is now becoming known as Aetogate were made by three graduate students (Parker, Martz and Taylor) and a newly minted Ph.D (Wedel). We have collected some of the comments made by established, senior scientists in the field. All of these comments are "on the record", having been either posted in public forums or explicitly cleared with their authors.

In the list below, we have summarised for brevity, highlighting what we think are the most important points made. Note that each comment is listed under the date that I added it, not the date that it was made. In each case, we link to the whole message that was sent, so that comments are not taken out of context.

Friday 6 June

Friday 24 May

Monday 10 March

Monday 3 March

Saturday 1 March

Monday 25 February

Sunday 24 February

Friday 22 February

Today sees the publication of two letters to the editor of the Albuquerque Journal rebutting the letters of 19 February described below.

(The other letter is by Mike Taylor, the maintainer of this web-site, who is not a professional -- merely a Ph.D student.)

Also today:

Tuesday 19 February

As promised (see the bottom of this page), we'll publish the opinions of scientists who disagree with us as well as those who agree. Today sees the publication of two letters to the editor of the Albuquerque Journal by dissenting voices:

Wednesday 13 February

Monday 11 February

Thursday 7 February

Monday 4 February

Your move

If you you are a professional palaeontologist (or scientist working in a related area such as geology or evolutionary biology) we want your thoughts -- whether they agree without ours or not.

If you are prepared to go on the record with an opinion on Aetogate, please email it to In the interests of fairness, we undertake to publish all comments submitted by scientists holding a Ph.D in palaeontology or a related field, irrespective of whether they agree with us or not.