（發表於2022年9月30日；作者為美國布朗大學歷史學副教授盧卡斯·裡佩爾•▩↟↟，治資本主義史/博物館史）

Dinosaurs are in the news these days, but it’s not just for groundbreaking discoveries.
More and more paleontologists are ringing alarm bells about high-profile auctions in which dinosaur fossils sell for outrageous sums. The most recent example involves a 77 million-year-old Gorgosaurus skeleton that Sotheby’s sold for over US$6 million in August 2022.

這些天恐龍出現在了新聞中•▩↟↟，但這可不只是因為突破性的發現↟╃╃₪•。
越來越多的古生物學家對各種明目張膽以高到離譜的價格拍賣恐龍化石的行為敲響了警鐘↟╃╃₪•。最近的例子包括蘇富比拍賣行在2022年8月以超過600萬美元的價格售出了一具有7700萬年曆史的蛇發女怪龍（譯註▩│╃·│：某種大型暴龍•▩↟↟，如上圖）骨架↟╃╃₪•。

But that’s not even close to the most anyone ever paid for a dinosaur. In May 2022, Christie’s sold a Deinonychus skeleton for $12.4 million. And a couple of months before that, Abu Dhabi’s Department of Culture and Tourism paid an eye-popping $31.8 million for Stan, a remarkably complete T. rex from South Dakota’s Hell Creek Formation that’s going to be the centerpiece of the Persian Gulf city’s new natural history museum.

但這距離人們為恐龍付出過的最高價還差得很遠↟╃╃₪•。2022年5月•▩↟↟，佳士得拍賣行以1240萬美元的價格售出了一具恐爪龍骨架↟╃╃₪•。而在此之前的兩個月•▩↟↟，阿布扎比文化旅遊部為“斯坦”付出了令人瞠目的3180萬美元•▩↟↟，斯坦是一隻極為完整的霸王龍•▩↟↟，來自南達科他州地獄溪地層•▩↟↟，將成為這個波斯灣城市自然歷史博物館新館的鎮館之寶↟╃╃₪•。

Some scientists are so dismayed they are speaking out. University of Edinburgh paleontologist Steve Brusatte told the Daily Mail that auction houses turn valuable specimens into “little more than toys for the rich.” Thomas Carr from Carthage College in Wisconsin was even more forthright, saying, “Greed for money is what drives these auctions.” He also complained that wealthy elites – including actors Nicholas Cage and Leonardo DiCaprio – are competing to acquire the best specimens in a game of juvenile one-upmanship, describing them as “thieves of time.”

有些科學家倍感恐慌•▩↟↟，開始站出來發聲了↟╃╃₪•。愛丁堡大學古生物學家史蒂夫·布魯薩特告訴《每日郵報》•▩↟↟，拍賣行將珍貴的標本變成了“區區富人的玩具”↟╃╃₪•。來自威斯康星州迦太基學院（即楷識大學）的托馬斯·卡爾更是直言不諱•▩↟↟，他說•▩↟↟，“這些拍賣會的驅動力是對金錢的貪婪↟╃╃₪•。” 他還抱怨說•▩↟↟，在這種力爭壓人一頭的幼稚遊戲中•▩↟↟，有錢的精英們•▩↟↟，包括演員尼古拉斯·凱奇和萊昂納多·迪卡普里奧•▩↟↟，正在爭相收購最好的標本•▩↟↟，他們還自稱“時間的小偷”↟╃╃₪•。

Most commenters trace the booming market for dinosaurs back to Sue, the largest and most complete T. rex ever found. After the FBI confiscated it from the same group of fossil hunters who found Stan, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago acquired it – with financial backing from Disney and McDonald’s – for over $8 million in 1997.

大部分評論家會將恐龍市場的蓬勃發展追溯到“蘇”•▩↟↟，蘇是迄今為止發現的最大✘▩✘☁↟、最完整的霸王龍↟╃╃₪•。在聯邦調查局從發現斯坦的那群化石獵人手中沒收了它之後•▩↟↟，芝加哥的菲爾德自然歷史博物館在迪士尼和麥當勞的資助下•▩↟↟，在 1997年以超過800萬美元的價格收購了它↟╃╃₪•。

But as I document in my recent book, “Assembling the Dinosaur,” the commercial specimen trade is as old as the science of paleontology itself. And its history shows the debate over whether dinosaurs ought to be bought and sold involves much deeper questions about the long-standing but hotly contested relationship between science and capitalism.

但正如我最近的新書《組裝恐龍》中所記載的•▩↟↟，商業標本交易和古生物學這門學科一樣古老↟╃╃₪•。其歷史也表明•▩↟↟，關於是否應該買賣恐龍的爭論•▩↟↟，涉及到了更深層次問題•▩↟↟，即科學和資本主義之間存在已久但激烈爭競的關係↟╃╃₪•。


Two sides of the debate

這場辯論的雙方

Paleontologists have good reason to oppose the commercial sale of valuable fossils. Science is fundamentally a community enterprise, and if specimens aren’t available for public examination, paleontologists have no way to assess whether new findings are true. What if a particularly outlandish theory is based on a fraudulent specimen?

古生物學家有充分的理由反對珍貴化石的商業銷售↟╃╃₪•。從根本上看•▩↟↟，科學是一項社群事業•▩↟↟，如果標本得不到公眾的檢視•▩↟↟，古生物學家就沒有辦法評估這些新發現是否準確無誤↟╃╃₪•。萬一某個特別荒誕的理論是基於某個欺詐性質的標本呢◕•▩？
原創翻譯▩│╃·│：龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.cn 轉載請註明出處


This happens more often than you’d think. In the late 1990s a private collector purchased what appeared to be a feathered dinosaur at the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show. National Geographic subsequently reported on it to great fanfare, claiming it was a “missing lix” between dinosaurs and modern birds. When scientists grew suspicious, they found that the so-called “Archaeoraptor” fossil combined pieces of several distinct specimens to make a chimerical creature that never existed.

這種情況的發生頻率比你想象的高↟╃╃₪•。九十年代末•▩↟↟，一位私人收藏家在圖森寶石和礦物展上購買了一具看似是帶羽毛恐龍的東西↟╃╃₪•。隨後•▩↟↟，《國家地理雜誌》對此做了大肆報道•▩↟↟，還宣稱它是恐龍和現代鳥類之間的一個“缺失環節”↟╃╃₪•。當科學家們開始懷疑它時•▩↟↟，他們發現這個所謂的“遼寧古盜鳥”化石是幾個各自不同的標本拼接而成的•▩↟↟，為的是炮製出一個從未存在過的幻想生物↟╃╃₪•。

But commercial fossil hunters make a compelling point, too. Most fossils first come to light through the natural process of erosion. Eventually, however, erosion also destroys the specimen itself – and there simply aren’t enough scientists to find every fossil before it is lost. Hence, the argument goes, commercial collectors should be celebrated for saving specimens by digging them up.

但商業化石獵人也提出了一種令人信服的觀點↟╃╃₪•。大部分化石首先是透過自然的侵蝕過程現於世間的↟╃╃₪•。然而•▩↟↟，最終侵蝕也毀掉了標本本身•▩↟↟，而且•▩↟↟，能在每一塊化石消失之前找到它們的科學家•▩↟↟，人數根本就不夠↟╃╃₪•。因此•▩↟↟，這種主張認為•▩↟↟，商業收藏家透過挖出標本來拯救標本的行為應該受到讚揚↟╃╃₪•。
原創翻譯▩│╃·│：龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.cn 轉載請註明出處


Wealthy philanthropists distance themselves

富有的慈善家開始與之保持距離

Both sides of the argument make a compelling point. But as the fiasco around “Archaeoraptor” reveals, it’s worth asking whether financial incentives erode trust.

爭論的雙方都提出了令人信服的觀點↟╃╃₪•。但是•▩↟↟，正如“遼寧古盜鳥”尷尬收場所揭示的那樣•▩↟↟，有必要問一問•▩↟↟，經濟刺激是否會侵蝕信任↟╃╃₪•。

Dinosaurs first came to the attention of geologists during the 19th century. In fact, these gigantic lizards did not acquire their name until the comparative anatomist Richard Owen invented the biological category “Dinosauria” in 1842.
At that time, scientists did not treat dinosaurs any differently from other valuables that could be dug out of the ground, such as gold, silver and coal. Museums purchased most of their fossils from commercial collectors, often using funds donated by wealthy industrialists like Andrew Carnegie, who even had a dinosaur named after him: Diplodocus carnegii.

恐龍第一次引發地質學家的關注是在十九世紀↟╃╃₪•。事實上•▩↟↟，一直到比較解剖學家理查德·歐文在1842年創造了“恐龍總目”這一生物類別後•▩↟↟，這些巨型蜥蜴才有了自己的名字↟╃╃₪•。
當時的科學家在對待恐龍時•▩↟↟，和其他從地下挖出來的貴重物品（如金✘▩✘☁↟、銀和煤）沒有任何不同↟╃╃₪•。博物館擁有的大部分化石•▩↟↟，都是從商業收藏家那裡收購的•▩↟↟，經常會使用安德魯·卡內基之類富有實業家捐獻的資金•▩↟↟，甚至還有一種恐龍是以他的名字命名的▩│╃·│：Diplodocus carnegii（以卡內基樑龍）↟╃╃₪•。

That started to change at the very end of the 19th century, when there was a concerted effort to decommodify dinosaur bones, and museums began to distance themselves from the commercial specimen trade.
One impetus came from museums’ wealthy benefactors, who sought to demarcate their charitable activities from the unsavory world of commerce. Philanthropists like Carnegie and J.P. Morgan gave money to cultural institutions because they wanted to signal their refined taste, their appreciation for learning and their republican virtues – not to enter into a business transaction.

這種情況在十九世紀末開始發生變化•▩↟↟，當時出現了通力合作•▩↟↟，目的就是讓恐龍骨骼去商品化•▩↟↟，博物館也開始和商業標本貿易保持距離↟╃╃₪•。
其中一股推動力來自博物館那些很有錢的捐助人•▩↟↟，他們力圖將自己的慈善活動和不光彩的商業世界劃清界限↟╃╃₪•。卡內基和J.P.摩根之類的慈善家資助文化機構•▩↟↟，是因為他們想宣告自己的高雅品味✘▩✘☁↟、對學習的讚賞•▩↟↟，也是出於他們共和黨人的美德•▩↟↟，而不是為了涉入商業交易↟╃╃₪•。

Moreover, the first Gilded Age resembled the present in that it, too, saw a sharp increase in economic inequality. This led to widespread class conflict, which could be remarkably violent and bloody. Afraid that incendiary labor leaders would bring the industrial economy to its knees, wealthy elites began using public displays of conspicuous generosity to demonstrate that American capitalism could yield public goods in addition to profits.

此外•▩↟↟，第一個鍍金時代和現在的相似之處就在於•▩↟↟，當時也出現了經濟不平等的急劇惡化↟╃╃₪•。這引發了廣泛的階級鬥爭•▩↟↟，而且這類鬥爭可能會非常血腥暴力↟╃╃₪•。由於擔心煽動成性的勞工領袖會讓工業經濟屈服•▩↟↟，富有的精英們開始透過非常惹眼的方式公開展示慷慨•▩↟↟，以此證明美國資本主義除了逐利之外還是有能力出產公共產品的↟╃╃₪•。
（譯註▩│╃·│：第一個鍍金時代始於十九世紀七十年代•▩↟↟，直到十九世紀末）

For all these reasons, it was essential for their philanthropic activities to be seen as selfless acts of genuine altruism, utterly divorced from the cutthroat competition of the marketplace.

出於所有這些原因•▩↟↟，他們的慈善活動在世人眼中必須是從真正的利他主義出發的無私行為•▩↟↟，須完全脫離市場中的殘酷競爭↟╃╃₪•。

Scientists take control

科學家獲得了控制權

At the same time, paleontologists embraced the language of “pure science” to claim they produced knowledge for its own sake – not financial gain.
By arguing that their work was free from the corrupting influence of money, scientists made themselves more trustworthy.

與此同時•▩↟↟，古生物學家們信奉的是“純科學”的語言•▩↟↟，聲稱他們是為了生產知識而生產知識•▩↟↟，而不是為了經濟收益↟╃╃₪•。
科學家們透過主張自己的工作不受金錢腐蝕•▩↟↟，讓自己變得更值得信賴了↟╃╃₪•。

Ironically, scientists found they could attract more funds by claiming to be completely uninterested in money, fashioning themselves into ideal recipients for the philanthropic largesse of wealthy elites. But that further necessitated a clear demarcation between the the culture of capitalism and the practice of science, which entailed a reluctance to acquire specimens via purchase.

具有諷刺意味的是•▩↟↟，科學家們發現•▩↟↟，他們可以透過聲稱對金錢毫無興趣來吸引更多的資金•▩↟↟，也就是把自己塑造成那些富有精英的大筆慈善捐助的理想接受者↟╃╃₪•。但這就進一步要求在資本主義文化和科學實踐之間劃出明確的界線•▩↟↟，這就使得不願意透過收購來獲得標本成為必須↟╃╃₪•。



（圖解▩│╃·│：十九世紀末二十世紀初•▩↟↟，博物館（威爾士博物館）開始資助恐龍骨骼的挖掘工作）

As scientists began shunning the commercial specimen trade, museums set about using the generous donations of wealthy philanthropists to mount increasingly ambitious expeditions that allowed scientists to collect fossils themselves.

隨著科學家們開始規避商業化的標本交易•▩↟↟，博物館開始利用富有慈善家的慷慨捐贈開展越來越多雄心勃勃的探險活動•▩↟↟，科學家們也便可以靠自己去採集化石了↟╃╃₪•。

Dinosaurs in the New Gilded Age

新鍍金時代的恐龍

But their ability to control the private market for dinosaur bones did not last forever. With the United States in the middle of what some call a New Gilded Age, it has come roaring back.

但是•▩↟↟，他們控制恐龍骨骼私人市場的能力不可能永遠保持下去↟╃╃₪•。隨著美國走進某些人口中的新鍍金時代•▩↟↟，這個市場又轟轟烈烈地回來了↟╃╃₪•。

Today, the most spectacular dinosaur fossils often hail from the Jehol formation of northeastern China. And more often than not, they are purchased from local farmers who supplement their incomes by hunting for fossils on the side.
As a result, the question of whether commercial incentives erode trust is back with a vengeance. Li Chun, a professor at Beijing’s prestigious Institute for Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, estimates that more than 80% of all marine reptiles on display in Chinese museums have been deceptively altered to some degree, often to increase their value.

今天•▩↟↟，最壯觀的恐龍化石通常來自中國東北部的熱河地層（熱河組）↟╃╃₪•。它們多半都是從當地農民那裡收購來的•▩↟↟，這些人透過搜尋化石來貼補自己的收入↟╃╃₪•。
結果就是•▩↟↟，商業動機是否會侵蝕信任的問題又捲土重來了↟╃╃₪•。據北京久負盛名的古脊椎動物和古人類研究所教授李純（音）估計•▩↟↟，在中國博物館中展出的所有海生爬行動物中•▩↟↟，80%以上都經過了某種程度的欺騙性改動•▩↟↟，通常是為了提高其價值↟╃╃₪•。

The age-old worry about whether the profit motive threatens to undermine the values of science is real. But it is hardly unique to paleontology.

這種由來已久的關於“獲利動機是否是破壞科學價值的威脅”的擔憂是真實存在的↟╃╃₪•。但這並不是古生物學獨有的問題↟╃╃₪•。

The spectacular implosion of Theranos, a tech startup that secured more than $700 million in venture capital based on false promises of having developed a better way to conduct blood tests, is just just a particularly high-profile example of commercial deceit paired with scientific misconduct. So much scientific research is now being paid for by people who have a commercial stake in the knowledge produced – and you can see the ramifications in everything from Exxon’s decision to hide its early research on climate change to Moderna’s recent move to begin enforcing its patent on the mRNA technology behind the most effective COVID-19 vaccines.

Theranos是一家科技創業公司•▩↟↟，透過“開發出更好的驗血方法”的虛假承諾•▩↟↟，獲得了超過7億美元的風險投資•▩↟↟，而其驚人內爆•▩↟↟，只是商業欺詐與學術不端行為相勾結的一個特別引人注目的例子↟╃╃₪•。如今•▩↟↟，有太多科研活動都是由那些在其產生的知識中牟取商業利益的人買單的•▩↟↟，從埃克森美孚公司決定隱瞞其針對氣候變化的早期研究•▩↟↟，到莫德納公司最近的動向（開始對其最有效的新冠疫苗背後的mRNA技術強制執行專利）•▩↟↟，種種後果如你所見↟╃╃₪•。
（譯註▩│╃·│：Theranos現已解散•▩↟↟，創始人斯坦福大學肄業生伊麗莎白·霍姆斯或將面臨20年監禁）

Is it any wonder that so many people have lost trust in science?

所以這麼多人失去了對科學的信任•▩↟↟，也就不奇怪了吧◕•▩？