The DinoBase Public Forum

Well, if nothing else I have certainly found this review informative and interesting. Of course almost everyone I surveyed is a friend and / or colleague and of course at various times I have talked over many of these issues with them in the past, but still to have them laid out in this manner (and of course with so many opinions form so many people) makes for fascinating reading. None of the general consensus that I expected appeared for many subjects (though certainly evo-devo is a favourite for excitement, a lack of funding a perennial issue, and the need for better taxonomy paramount) with instead typically a wide variety of answers, opinions and experiences coming out. Partly this must reflect the various backgrounds in research, ages, experiences and nationalities of those being questioned, but the questions themselves were intended to circumvent much of that by being so general that answers would not be dependent on those factors. Instead we see an exact consensus between a British invertebrate worker and American dinosaur researcher, which contrasts sharply with another American dinosaur guy.

The upshot of course is that it does indeed show that there is (perhaps unsurprisingly in hindsight) a huge variety of interests and concerns among palaeontologists. It sounds corny and silly, but there really *is* a huge amount to be excited about, and a huge amount still to be investigated. What is potentially very promising is the increasing links being forged between countries, researchers and disciplines. Palaeontologists are working with engineers on mechanics problems, with behavioural biologists on palaeoecology, with chemists on taphonomy, climate scientists on extinction and more. The changing political landscape (and more flights, even with rising costs) is allowing for better access for researchers to reach each other and also collections of fossils.

By far and away though the internet much be considered a prime mover in all this. For me palaeontolgoy has always been an area of science that demands collaboration with other fields – we are fundamentally a mixture of biology and geology already. Previously if you wanted help with taphonomy you would have to hunt for some hints in the archives of libraries, ask around in your departments and hope someone would help, collar a taphonomist at a meeting and try and arrange a face-to-face at some point in the next 6 months to discuss things, or send a letter and hope you got a reply. Potential collaborators or help would come from a limited circle of researchers in your institute or country. Now you can search for thousands of papers and even books freely online, find possible collaborators in Australia or Brazil in seconds who have an exact interest in your problem and then chat to them in person with a video call an hour from the time you realized you had a problem with your work. Increasingly people are taking advantage of this access and information and it allows work to be better researched, better reviewed and to be better available to others than ever before. I can only see good things to come of this trend and with the advent of open access journals, it is set to increase.

It is easy to say, but despite the pressures and problems in modern palaeontology, it is in rude health. We are constantly finding new and important fossils and indeed localities and horizons – even in areas that have been well studied in the past. New techniques continue to be created and refined, new collaborations are occurring, and as our knowledge and understanding of previous ages increases s too does our ability to investigate it further, resolve outstanding debates, and enters new areas of research. There is much to do, but we will enjoy doing it and there will be more than few surprises along the way – who knows what still remains buried?