If any science story has legs it is that of the discovery of a new species of dwarf human on a remote Indonesian island of Flores, published in 2004 by Nature (Vol: 7012 pp: 1055 & 1087). A session on Tuesday looked at how this remained in the media eye so long and the resulting public confusion. The panel were Bert Roberts and Chris Turney of the original research team and Deborah Smith an award winning journalist for her coverage of the story.
The researchers detailed a new species of around 1 meter tall which they named Homo floresiensis after the island she was discovered on and nicknamed the Hobbit in relation to her height and oversized feet! (The name was apparently changed from Homo floresianes en route to publication as one of the peer reviewers pointed out she would forever be remembered by students as flowery anus…)
Initial publicity was phenomenal – countless papers reported the find as front page news and broadcasters clambered to get images and interviews. Two days later critics also began to engage with media. They claim the now nicknamed ‘Hobbit’ was a modern human who was micro cephalic – a genetic condition resulting in, amongst other things, a reduced skull size.
It is not the first time that a new fossil or human or subhuman has been claimed not to be real. The first Neanderthal was claimed by some to be a bear, others believed it was a lost Mongolian Cossack, and one critic said it was a child with rickets who had been bashed on the head!
How do the public deal with ongoing debate and discussions? Do they believe that the fossil is a genuine new species, a hoax or are they genuinely confused? Comparisons with the climate change debate in the media were made. Journalists wanting to present opposing views have focused on the vocal minority of critics and the team who found the fossil. In reality, the researchers who found the Hobbit estimate, the field is probably divided 95% to 5%.
What are the answers? What lessons have been learned by the team and reporters? Given the history of these issues researchers could have preempted the critics informed media that they were aware of the potential for criticism and tackled it head on. Media could have waited until the critics had been peer reviewed before giving them the same space as the believers who had been through this process.
On the positive side, Deb Smith pointed out this is a fantastic example of scientists engaging in media and continuing to do so. It is the ‘story of her career’ and she continues to enjoy it playing out. Only more fossils will end the confusion and a new dig begins this June. We shall watch and see if lessons have been learned and how the public perceives what ensues.
Ruth Francis
(I should probably say here that I’m the press officer for Nature, where this fossil was first published)
Leave a Reply