Thread by @natterlyk

I have my own personal opinion on sending hominin fossils for a space flight, I'll add those at the end. But Im going to provide some context from the perspective of the South African National Heritage Resources Act No. 25 of 1999. I don't work for SAHRA, but I did work for the>

Western Cape Provincial Government Heritage Resources Management Services (aka HWC), and have worked with the act to make decisions on destructive analysis, excavations and archaeological human remains finds and collection.

I have had no communication with the case officers, >

I've only read the application and permit on SAHRIS. So I'm writing this based on my experience and knowing how the act dictates the decision making process.

The NHRA is really good and has held up well since 1999. There are a couple things that can be revisited & tightened up>

but otherwise it covers pretty much everything. Except of course a palaeoarchaeologist wanting to send fossils into space. But first things first;

The act addresses how to protect and utilise heritage resources. These resources are not just palaeontological and archaeological >

artefacts, but tangible and intangible cultural heritage (including oral history etc.)

The objects sent on the Virgin flight -according to the act- are palaeontological. They are not human remains. If they were - the Human Tissue act would have kicked in and the idea would >

never have got off the ground. That act supercedes everything.

So in considering the application they are not thought of as human remains. I don't even know if they're considered human - that's a discussion in and of itself. They ARE significant fossils due to their connection>

to their connection to human evolution and rarity but that doesn't make them untouchable.

Next thing to consider is what is the risk of damage to these remains? SAHRA must have been persuaded that the risk was very low. I imagine that in comparison to any destructive analysis >

the risk wasn't considered high enough to deny the application. Those in APM at SAHRA are professionals with sound judgement, this wouldn't have been considered lightly.

Ok next thing. There were no objections. It was approved by the WITS ethics committee. I have no insight >

into their process for this, but I think that they approval does tell us something. And no one else objected. The application was available to the public, and the public can, under the act, object. No other palaeoarchaeologist objected. So in summary there was not enough reason >

to deny the application. It can be argued (cough cough) that it's not good management of heritage resources. But it's hard to argue WHY it's bad management when there isn't a section of the act to provide a good reason for that argument. Do I like it? >

Not at all, my eyes rolled back so far that I saw ten years into my past. Do I think it's just for a headline and doesn't benefit the South African national heritage estate? Totally. Professional I just can't see how under the NHRA the application could be denied.>

The act is available online as a pdf if you want to read it.
I'd love to hear a statement from WITS and SAHRA, especially on how this is supposed to be good for South African heritage. And from National Geographic on how this aligns with their values and ethics guidelines.

/End

So have something to add. @Kimi_Chap pointed out that sending hominim fossils on a space flight may contravene SAHRA's own policy.
And my response to this is yes it does... and there's a bit of a gap in the policy that means no it doesn't... Let me explain>

The policy in question is that SAHRA can't permit the export of something rare & of unusual scientific value. But it doesn't distinguish what makes something rare or valuable. This will be motivated by the applicant and evaluated by the case officer. Just like the level of risk>

Then here's where it gets murky and how the policy can be better expanded on. I suspect that requirement refers to export for purpose of analysis and possible destructive sampling. And might not be as salient for export for the purpose of display or promoting science, whereby>

The safe transport and return of the specimen can be assured. Then one can argue that the promotion of science is beneficial and the risk is small, therefore a rare & valuable specimen can be exported.
Do I agree? I don't think this exercise was a worthy use of these >

heritage resources. That is my subjective opinion, but could I as a heritage officer argue the denial of the permit based on this inline with the NHRA and SAHRAs guidelines? I'm not sure I could.

I hope I've managed to show how these decision are made and what guides them

>

Oh and the gap I mentioned is including in the policy when an exception to the policy would be allowed and some kind of definition or distinction of what makes something rare and of scientifically valuable. As well as assessing risk>

I don't know anything about this flight, but is it riskier than flying between Cape Town and Joberg? Because a permit is not required for moving fossils within the country. And does the increased risk outweight a (supposed) benefit to promotion of South African science/heritage?

Tbh I can't really argue that the risk is too great. My personal objection is the banality of the entire exercise. I don't see how it promotes science or heritage conservation. I don't see how it's educational or expanding frontiers. But hey, what do I know🤷🏻‍♀️