One of the
most famous scientific hoaxes in the past century is known as the Piltdown Man.
Surprisingly, not many know who or what this is. Piltdown Man is a set of
fossilized ‘hominoid’ cranial remains discovered by Charles Dawson in 1912 in
Sussex, England. At the time, many scientists, including Arthur Smith Woodward
(a renowned geologist at London’s Natural History Museum) who worked with
Dawson studying the remains, believed that these fossils were the key to the
connection between human and ape evolution. It is important to note that at
this time many believed that man directly evolved from apes, which we now know
is not true. Rather, they are more like cousins, evolving from a common
ancestor and following two separate paths. From the remains, Dawson and others
interpreted that the brain and skull evolved to be more human-like than
ape-like before upright walking, which we also now know is the exact opposite
of what happened. The scientific community exalted Dawson and Woodward, and
proudly agreed with the two. Any doubts were either dismissed because of
Woodward’s status or kept quiet because of the popular opinion. The hoax was
not discovered until almost half a century later when other fossils being
unearthed in other continents like Asia had no resemblance to the Piltdown Man.
In 1949, Dr. Kenneth Oakley, a geologist at the Natural History Museum, used
fluorine testing to date the remains. Fluorine from the soil is absorbed into
bones as they fossilize so, the older the bones, the higher the fluorine
content. He discovered that they were much younger than the million years old
that Dawson had originally suggested. When newer and better dating techniques
were created, scientists found that the remains were no more than 100 years old
and belonged to a female orangutan. Most scientists were baffled, betrayed, and
disappointed with the fraud. It was then that they realized that science was
something that people could fake if they wanted to; it wasn’t as honorable as
they thought. The Piltdown Man steered human evolution studies in the wrong
direction for years, preventing many from studying other important and true
finds.
Fortunately
and unfortunately, scientists are human and have their faults. Whomever was
behind this hoax, whether it be Dawson or other insignificant aids, they let
their jealousy, hubris, and need for attention get in the way of science. Many
have noted that the reasoning for doing this might have been to gain fame for himself
and/or his country. At the time, there had been no hominoid remains found in
England, so it is possible that this may have pushed someone to create this
elaborate hoax. With everyone being so excited about the remains, many forgot
the scientific process. When finding remains that could be potentially theory
altering, scientists are supposed to question and test the hypothesis to the
best of their abilities. In this scenario, it seems that with all of the
excitement and pride for their country, there was no questioning whether or not
the remains were real. As we have learned from the ancient Greeks, hubris may
result in tragic consequences and this was one of those tragedies. Fortunately
for modern scientists, scientists in the mid-twentieth century remembered what
it meant to be a scientist. After doubt concerning the authenticity of the
skull was made public, scientists began using new dating technologies to test
the legitimacy of the fossils. First, scientists tested the fluorine content in
the fossils, which concluded that these were too young to be from before Homo
sapiens’ introduction to the world (the content was much to low for something
that was supposed to be millions of years old). Then in 1953, scientists used
more advance dating methods such as nitrogen and carbon level testing to
completely analyze the fossils. From these tests, scientists discovered that
the fossils were no more than 100 years old and had been stained artificially
with iron. This hoax is an example of how important it is to continually test
and re-test fossils until the evidence can be falsified or proven true.
Removing the ‘human’ factor from science may reduce errors like this from
happening again in the long run, but it could also halt the furtherance of
scientific knowledge. I don’t see a way of removing the ‘human’ factor from
science, but it could be disastrous if it were so. Without the ‘human’ factor,
there wouldn’t be the curiosity involved in science that pushes people to
pursue new and wild ideas, which so often result in the discovery of something
new. Curiosity is the key to science, and if everyone thought like robots, who
knows what would become of our future knowledge. There is much to learn from
this unfortunate hoax, but most importantly, it is essential to remember that
one must not always rely on one source of information, especially in the
scientific community. Checking the facts and sources of new information is key
to making sure that the truth is being told. Scientists ignored the part of the
scientific method that recommends multiple tests be done to check credibility
of unverified sources, and in the end it wound up being one of the biggest
regrets in the scientific community.
