An international team of researchers has just quantified part of the impact of smuggling Brazilian fossils abroad. Almost 60% of scientific publications on material from the Araripe basin – between Ceará, Pernambuco and Piauí – are led by foreign authors not linked to Brazilian institutions.
Despite Brazilian legislation specifically prohibiting the departure of fossils used as a reference for the description of new species (the so-called holotypes) from the national territory, 88% of the specimens described by foreigners are outside Brazil.
The findings are part of a paper just published in the specialized journal Royal Society Open Science, which analyzed academic work published between 1990 and 2021.
In the article –which also investigates the situation of fossils in Mexico–, the scientists indicate the recurring presence of colonialist practices in paleontological research, with rich countries appropriating material and species collected in poorer nations, ignoring national legislation to protect heritage. and harming the development of science in these places.
In addition to presenting quantitative data on paleopiracy, the new work details that international institutions turn a blind eye to fossil smuggling and that major scientific journals do not require documents proving the licit origin of the material studied.
In some cases, the same groups of European researchers are responsible for the irregular exploration of fossils in both Brazil and Mexico.
The assertive stance now chosen by Brazilian and Mexican researchers marks the deepening of the strategy of publicly exposing ethical and legal conflicts related to the irregular exploitation of fossiliferous heritage.
“These things are not new, they have been going on for decades. We are saturated with it all, but we cannot be heard by the international scientific community”, says paleontologist Juan Cisneiros, a professor at the Federal University of Piauí and one of the authors of the article.
Cisneiros points out that powerful research institutions in developed countries, as well as their scientists, use a vast arsenal of retaliation to intimidate and silence paleontologists from Brazil and other Latin American countries.
“They are powerful people. We know the weight of whom we are dealing with. I have calculated the risks a lot and I know that I may suffer academic consequences, but it is something that someone needs to do. We have to fight also within the academic field. theme into the congresses, into the discussion of science”, he says.
One of the researchers’ main fears is the possibility of restricting access to Araripe fossils deposited in collections abroad. It is common that, in order to study the main species of Brazilian prehistory, paleontologists have to travel through museums and universities in Europe, Japan and the United States.
In addition to the geographic distance and the high costs associated with the unfavorable exchange rate for Latin Americans, paleontologists are also directly dependent on authorizations granted by foreign institutions.
In the survey carried out by the Brazilians, several publications were identified in which foreign researchers openly detail that the fossils were purchased by their museums and institutions: something strictly prohibited by Brazilian legislation.
“This made me very uncomfortable. To admit that a Brazilian fossil was purchased means not having the slightest shame, not having any fear of punishment. It’s as if this person knows that he can go to a country, loot it and still talk about it openly.” , says Cisners.
Co-author of the work, UFRN (Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte) professor Aline Ghilardi points out that foreign universities and museums have few incentives to inspect ethical and legal issues of fossils.
“Institutions turn a blind eye to the fossil situation because they are benefiting. They get more scientific articles in high-impact journals and they have beautiful fossils that attract more visitors to museums. Nobody wants to lose the benefit. , nothing will change”, says the paleontologist, who defends publicly exposing the entities.
One of the most active voices in Brazilian science against the international trafficking of fossils, Ghilardi was one of the organizers of the dinosaur repatriation campaign. ubirajara jubatuswhich Germany refuses to return.
The mobilization, which went beyond Brazilian social networks and reached the international press and scientific conferences abroad, is considered a watershed for the positioning of scientists.
The fossil of the exotic animal, which lived about 110 million years ago in the Araripe region, was illegally taken to Europe, where the species was described in a work without the participation of any Brazilian.
Immediately after the article was published, in December 2020, Brazilian researchers began to mobilize on social media through the #UbirajaraBelongstoBR campaign (Ubirajara belongs to Brazil).
The controversy spread through the international community and ended up leading the journal Cretaceous Research to cancel the publication of the work. The journal also announced a revision to its guidelines, stating that it would no longer accept fossils suspected of having been illegally collected and exported from their countries of origin.
Despite the pressure, the Natural History Museum in Karlsruhe said it will not return the fossil to Brazil. The institution’s curator, paleontologist Eberhard “Dino” Frey is precisely one of the authors of the article on the ubirajara jubatus.
“A lot of people criticized it at first, saying that the hashtag protest was useless, but we managed to bring people together in various parts of the world and go beyond social networks. [sobre colonialismo na ciência] it stopped being whispered in the corridors and in coffee breaks, it became part of the main space in congresses”, exemplifies Ghilardi.
One of the great achievements of the campaign was the voluntary return to Brazil of the prehistoric spider Cretapalpus vittari. Named in honor of Pabllo Vittar, this and 35 other fossils were amicably returned to Brazil by the University of Kansas, in the United States, in October 2021.
Although he notes a greater openness to the subject on the part of foreign paleontologists, Ghilardi recognizes that there is still a long way to go. Therefore, the group proposes a series of measures of good practice for research institutions and scientific journals.
One of the main suggestions is the requirement of ample documentary evidence that the material had a legal origin in their country, as well as the refusal of publications whose fossils have dubious origin.
The authors also appeal to researchers and international entities to engage in constructive partnerships with countries that supply the fossils, abandoning the purely exploratory model.
According to the survey, the academic quality of articles produced from fossils obtained irregularly is also compromised, since essential information about the environment in which the material was collected is often not included.
The inclusion of middlemen, smugglers and private collectors in the equation further encourages the deliberate tampering of fossils with the aim of increasing the sale value.
Due to the high number of articles signed by foreigners about the heritage of Araripe, the team did not include invertebrate animals and non-holotypes in the analysis.
“We only show the tip of the iceberg. The dimension of the problem is certainly much greater”, explains Juan Cisneiros.
The group’s objective is to continue exploring issues related to the irregular trade in fossils.
On the Brazilian side, the following also signed the article: Felipe Pinheiro, professor at Unipampa (Federal University of Pampa), Marcos Sales, from the Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Ceará, Renan Bantim, from the Regional University of Cariri and Flaviana Lima, from Federal University of Pernambuco.
