Week 5: Piltdown Hoax

     On December 18th, 1912, the duo of Sir Arthur Smith Woodward and Charles Dawson presented Piltdown Man, nicknamed "the earliest Englishman," to the world. The remains of this Piltdown man were a skull and jaw fragment, fossilized and said to be the earliest link on the evolutionary chain to man. In the years that the Piltdown discoveries were accepted as fact, man scientists based their careers on these discoveries and the world itself accepted the British discovery that man arose in Britain. The credibility and standards of the Natural History Museum of London, along with the post of Sir Arthur Smith Woodward as part of the Natural History Museum, these discoveries were accepted at face value, even though the evidence didn't necessarily add up. Well, in 1953, thanks to the dutiful work of Kenneth Oakley and his chemical testing, it was proven that the Piltdown items, all of them, were forgeries. In other words, it was all a big hoax that had fooled the scientific community for over 40 years. The discovery of this hoax occurred through Oakley's chemical testing, which was testing for the items' nitrogen content, which didn't coincide with the estimated dates. Upon further investigation, the skull was discovered to have been an orangutan's jaw that had been filed, boiled, and stained in order to appear older than it really was and more human. All of these discoveries were proven false, rocking the foundations and credibility of London's Natural History Museum. The question of science's credibility came to the public's mind. How can the public trust that what these scientists say or discover are truthful or honest?

     Human nature dictates that human beings are imperfect and bring biases to all their endeavors. Sadly, even the quest for scientific truth can be lead astray by human faults. The nationalism that infested the world during the buildup to the first world war was a primary cause for this hoax. Britain, as a nation and identity for its people, needed to be as good or better than the rest of Europe, especially when it came to human origins. What could be better than to say that the human race rose within your borders and spread to conquer the world? Even better, the first man was English. Well, this put the country into the perfect state for a hoax such as the Piltdown Man to occur. Richard Dawson seemed to be an egomaniac in the sense that he seemed to be obsessed with garnishing more academic credibility as an amateur scientist. As an amateur, he was unqualified to truly say that what he discovered was what he said he had discovered. He was consistently stretching his knowledge and the truth in order to make a name for himself. Woodward's unwavering and adamant support for the Piltdown Man was also unbecoming for a scientist. As the pre-eminent person in his field, it was his duty to be as critical of the discovery as possible, especially before accepted it as fact. However, the spotlight placed on Woodward and the worldwide fame and recognition went to his head, turning him into a celebrity rather than a scientist.

     In my opinion, the "human" factor cannot be completely removed, but it can be severely limited. Rather than make national ventures into scientific inquiry, we should push for more international scientific work. With the collection of resources of multiple, if not every nation, our possibility for scientific discovery will become almost endless. Also, having unrelated, both in regards to family and nation, investigations into discoveries will keep people from accepting hoaxes for outside agendas. Science and scientific discovery should be based on a quest for the truth and an effort to actively understand the universe and make it a better place for all, including humankind. If it were possible to remove the human factor from science, it would be a grand mistake to do so. Even with all these costs and faults that humans bring to the table, human curiosity is also the driving force in science. Without one, we can't have the other, but that doesn't mean that we can't do our best to limit the negative factors humans bring to scientific inquiry.

     Personally, I have a new-found skepticism when it comes to science. Scientists are not above deceit for their own personal gains, like the rest of humanity. They are neither the best of us, nor the worst. However, just because people have the ability to lie, that doesn't mean they will do so. Everything should be seen from a skeptic viewpoint until it can be verified and proven by multiple means. That's the life lesson to take away from this hoax. Don't believe something until they can prove it is true, rather than someone just telling you that it is true. Proof is necessary to be accepted as truth, without proof, there is no certainty.