[meteorite-list] Responsible science rant

[tracy latimer]

My mistake; I had thought Mr. T was referring to the excavation of the 
Brenham meteorite with the backhoe, not the shovel of the Glorieta Mountain 
find.  Were there actually any cultural relics in the area to disturb, or 
was this a case of sour grapes, where someone was peeved because it was 
someone else's turn for 15 minutes of fame?

Regarding collection of meteorites and other artifacts:  they don't become 
science or culture until someone responsibly locates, documents, and curates 
them.  Before that, they are just interesting objects occupying a piece of 
dirt.   Why is it that whenever someone proposes a new line of inquiry or 
development, someone else opposes it on principle, with or without 
accompanying theory, usually on the grounds that it will somehow harm the 
environment/damage cultural sensitivities/be a threat, even when there has 
been little or no documentation to support the theorized problem?  I am 
thinking several years back, when Cassini was opposed on the ground that it 
carried nuclear materials to power the spacecraft.  The protesters had it in 
their head that, despite smaller odds of an accident than a meteorite 
strike, and NO odds of environmental harm, this was a nuclear accident about 
to happen.  Recently, we had an astrologer trying to sue NASA for the Deep 
Impact project; she claimed that the mission adversely affected her ability 
to do accurate astrological readings.  The astonishing part was that this 
claim actually got any serious consideration.  I an noting this happening 
more and more.  Sometimes the worries are valid, but often, they are not.  
We shoot ourselves in the foot when we are too afraid to offend someone to 
do good science.

My 2 bits.  Feel free to be offended at my rant.
Tracy Latimer