University of Bristol

Mike Taylor

As [everyone now
knows](http://svpow.com/2012/04/03/did-sauropds-support-their-weight-by-living-in-vast-shallow-lakes/ "Did sauropods support their weight by living in vast shallow lakes?"),
last week the respected and trusted *Today* programme on BBC Radio 4 ran
[an absurd nonscience
piece](http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9710000/9710630.stm)
on Brian Ford's wild, ignorant, uninformed speculation that all
dinosaurs lived in shallow lakes because that was the only way they
could support their weight. 
[Plenty](http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/04/04/bad-science-journalism-101/)
of people [have
shown](http://h2vp.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/no-dinosaurs-were-not-aquatic.html)
what [utter, contemptible
nonsense](http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2012/04/paleontologists-sink-aquatic-dinosaur-nonsense/)
this is, and I won't waste everyone's time by reiterating it.

Inspired by [a comment by Stephen
Curry](http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/04/03/hawking-with-dinosaurs/#comment-9171),
I put together [a request for a formal
retraction](http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/radio4.txt), and solicited
signatories from the VRTPALEO list and Dinosaur Mailing List during a
24-hour window.  During that time 20 palaontologists contacted me to
sign, and so this is what I submitted at 3pm on Thursday 5th April:

> Dear Radio 4,
>
> The Today Programme for Tuesday 3rd April 2012 contained a science
> piece by Tom Feilden:  
> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9710000/9710630.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9710000/9710630.stm){rel="nofollow"}  
> regarding Professor Brian J. Ford's "theory" that dinosaurs did not
> live on land but in shallow lakes which supported their weight.
>
> Professor Ford's theory was published in a magazine rather than a
> peer-reviewed journal, and is wholly unsupported by any evidence
> whatsoever. It contradicts all evidence from dinosaur anatomy,
> biomechanics, sedimentology and palaeoenvironments, and does not even
> qualify as fringe science. It is unsupported and uninformed
> speculation which Ford could have disproved had he taken just ten
> minutes to look at the readily available literature representing a
> century of consensus.
>
> By giving air-time to this speculation, even comparing Ford with
> Galileo, Radio 4 has unfortunately lent it a credibility that it has
> not earned, introduced a time-wasting controversy where there is not a
> controversy, misled the public, and maybe most importantly compromised
> its own credibility as a trusted source of science reporting. No
> listener with any knowledge of palaeontology will have been able to
> take this report seriously; will they believe the next science report
> you broadcast?
>
> To mitigate this damage, we recommend and request that you broadcast a
> formal retraction.
>
> - Dr. Mike Taylor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of
>   Bristol, UK
> - Dr. David Marjanović, Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany
> - Silvio C. Renesto, Associate Professor of Palaeontology, Department
>   of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, Università degli Studi
>   dell'Insubria, Italy
> - Dr. Grant Hurlburt, Department of Natural History, Royal Ontario
>   Museum, Canada
> - Dr. Michael Balsai, Department of Biology, Temple University,
>   Philadelphia, USA
> - Dr. Bill Sanders, Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan,
>   USA
> - Dr. Stephen Poropat, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala
>   University, Sweden
> - Dr. Oliver Wings, Curator of Vertebrate Palaeontology, Museum für
>   Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany
> - Jon Tennant, Independent Researcher, UK
> - Prof. John R. Hutchinson, Department of Veterinary Basic Sciences,
>   The Royal Veterinary College, UK.
> - Prof. Lorin R. King, Dept. of Science, Math and Physical Education,
>   Western Nebraska Community College
> - Scott Hartman, paleontologist and scientific illustrator,
>   SkeletalDrawing.com
> - Neil Kelley, Department of Geology, University of California at
>   Davis, USA
> - Dr. Matteo Belvedere, Department of Geosciences, University of
>   Padova, Italy
> - Andrew R. C. Milner, Paleontologist and Curator, St. George Dinosaur
>   Discovery Site, Utah, USA
> - Dr. James I. Kirkland, State Paleontologist, Utah Geological Survey,
>   USA
> - Dr. Jerry D. Harris, Director of Paleontology, Dixie State College,
>   Utah, USA
> - Dr. Andrew A. Farke, Curator, Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology,
>   Claremont, California, USA
> - Dr. Daniel Marty, Editor (Palaeontology) of the Swiss Journal of
>   Geosciences
> - Dr. Manabu Sakamoto, School of Earth Sciences, University of
>   Bristol, UK

(My thanks to all who signed.)

To give it the best chance of being seen by the relevant people, I
submitted this three times on the BBC's rather confusing web-site: on
the [*Today* feedback
page](http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3970000/newsid_3974100/3974173.stm),
on the [BBC complaints
page](https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?reset=#anchor), and on the
[Contact *Today*
page](http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/contact_today/default.stm).

Today at 2pm, I got the following reply:

> Dear Dr Taylor
>
> Reference CAS-1387310-3W6PSD
>
> Thanks for contacting us regarding 'Today' broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on
> 3 April.
>
> I understand that you were unhappy with the inclusion of a report by
> Tom Feilden on a theory proposed by Professor Brian Ford regarding how
> dinosaurs' lived. I note you believe the report gave credibility to
> this theory, and compared the professor with Galileo.
>
> Your concerns were forwarded to the programme who explained in
> response that the item in question was a light-hearted feature looking
> at an outlandish new idea about the dinosaurs and which was clearly
> signposted as such.
>
> They added that the item even included one of the world's leading
> experts on dinosaurs, Paul Barrett, exposing it's flaws and ridiculing
> it and that it was very clear where Brian Ford's article was published
> since Laboratory News was clearly mentioned.
>
> They also added that the reference to Galileo was simply an aside
> about the importance of dissent in science, with Brian Ford was
> unlikely to be put off by the condemnation of the established experts,
> and not, as you suggest, a comparison between Brian Ford and one of
> the greatest scientists of all time.
>
> In closing they explained:
>
> "Today does a lot of good, serious science, indeed that same morning
> we had items on carbon capture and storage and the controversy over
> the publication of flu research, but that doesn't mean it all has to
> be serious and we must be free to include light-hearted items,
> reported in a more humorous way."
>
> Nevertheless, we're guided by the feedback we receive and I can assure
> you I've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a
> daily report of audience feedback that's made available to all BBC
> staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel
> controllers and other senior managers.
>
> The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape
> decisions about future programming and content.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to contact us.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Mark Roberts
>
> BBC Complaints

I guess I don't need to say that I find this *completely*
unsatisfactory.  Trying to pass the segment off as "a light-hearted
feature looking at an outlandish new idea about the dinosaurs and which
was clearly signposted as such" just won't fly: [its page on the BBC
site](http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9710000/9710630.stm)
is entitled "Aquatic dinosaur theory debated", and there is nothing
about it that signposts it as any less serious than, say, [the piece
they did with me on
*Brontomerus*](http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9405000/9405448.stm),
or on [sauropod neck
posture](http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/neck-posture/media/mike-on-radio-four-today.mp3).

As it happens, my mum called me for a chat a couple of days ago, asking
me whether I'd heard "the new theory" on the *Today* show.  It was
pretty painful having to let her down.  She obviously didn't hear it as
"a light-hearted feature".  It's going to be harder now for her to
accept other science reporting on *Today*.

The response claims that "the reference to Galileo was simply an aside
about the importance of dissent in science \[...\] and not, as you
suggest, a comparison between Brian Ford and one of the greatest
scientists of all time".  Well, let's take a listen and see what exactly
was said:

> Somehow, I don't think that \[Paul Barrett's gentle disagreement\] is
> going to be enough to persuade Professor Brian Ford. As another famous
> scientific dissenter, Galileo, was reported to have to have muttered
> under his breath when forced to deny that the Earth revolves around
> the Sun, "*Eppur si muove*" --- "[And yet, it
> moves](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves)".

Yikes.

This is just so disappointing.  It would have taken *Today*'s Tom
Feilden five, maybe ten minutes of high-school-level research to
discover that Ford has no grounding in palaeontology, sedimentology,
biomechanics or palaeoenvironments; that his "theory" is as emphatically
contradicted by the evidence as geocentricism; and that its publication
was in a trade newsletter.  By skipping that basic due diligence, and
blindly reporting Ford's fantasy as serious science, *Today* has
dramatically undermined its own credibility; by refusing to retract or
even apologise, they've missed a chance to regain some of that lost
credibility.

Why does it matter?  [Scott Hartman said it
best](http://skeletaldrawing.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/when-journalists-attack.html):

> We live in a world where [huge swaths of
> people](http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040167)
> don't understand basic scientific concepts, and this sort of nonsense
> just makes it harder to teach. Worse, listeners that were sympathetic
> to the reporting will become disillusioned when they find out the
> reality of the situation, possibly making them view all science more
> cynically (or simply avoiding science altogether).
>
> We deserve better science reporting than this. The BBC and everyone
> else who carried this story should be ashamed.

Yes.


As everyone now knows, last week the respected and trusted

 Today

programme on BBC Radio 4 ran an absurd nonscience piece on Brian Ford’s wild, ignorant, uninformed speculation that all dinosaurs lived in shallow lakes because that was the only way they could support their weight.

BBC Radio 4 fail in their duty of care to their listeners

No.  No, they did not.

Despite what [this clown](http://brianjford.com/w-dino01.htm) had to say
on this morning's [BBC Radio 4 *Today*
Programme](http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9710000/9710630.stm).

(That's occasional SV-POW! reader/commenter Paul Barrett in the back
half of that audio clip, being amazingly restrained.)

Turns out that the published work this interview is based on is [this
one](http://www.labnews.co.uk/news/prehistoric-revolution/) in
*Laboratory News*.  No references, no hint that it's been peer-reviewed,
no illustrations that are more convincing than this one:

::: {#attachment_5701 .wp-caption .alignnone shortcode="caption" style="width: 490px"}
[![](https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ford.jpeg?w=480&h=294){.size-full
.wp-image-5701 aria-describedby="caption-attachment-5701" loading="lazy"
attachment-id="5701"
permalink="http://svpow.com/2012/04/03/did-sauropds-support-their-weight-by-living-in-vast-shallow-lakes/ford/"
orig-file="https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ford.jpeg"
orig-size="525,322" comments-opened="1"
image-meta="{\"aperture\":\"0\",\"credit\":\"\",\"camera\":\"\",\"caption\":\"\",\"created_timestamp\":\"0\",\"copyright\":\"\",\"focal_length\":\"0\",\"iso\":\"0\",\"shutter_speed\":\"0\",\"title\":\"\"}"
image-title="ford" image-description=""
image-caption="Ford’s explanation of how dinosaurs “just didn’t make sense”, illustrated.
"
medium-file="https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ford.jpeg?w=300"
large-file="https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ford.jpeg?w=525"
width="480" height="294"
srcset="https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ford.jpeg?w=480&h=294 480w, https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ford.jpeg?w=150&h=92 150w, https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ford.jpeg?w=300&h=184 300w, https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ford.jpeg 525w"
sizes="(max-width: 480px) 100vw, 480px"}](http://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ford.jpeg)

Ford\'s explanation of how dinosaurs \"just didn\'t make sense\",
illustrated.
:::

And, unsurprisingly enough, the article is complete nonsense.  "We
accept the remains of their footprints without demur, although for such
gigantic creatures the imprints that we observe in rocky strata make no
sense. The prints are roughly as deep in the layers of Liassic mud as
ours might have been, although the high mass of an adult dinosaur would
cause it to sink up to its knees. The footprints seem to be those of an
altogether lighter organism."  Yes, they would --- to someone ignorant
of all the work that's been done on dinosaur biomechanics and tracks.  A
cell biologist operating way outside his area, for example.

What a complete waste of time and energy.

Matt and I have often talked about how valuable the contributions of
amateurs can be in science in general, and palaeo in particular.  And
then some asshat comes along and takes a dump in the living room.  And
now the world is full of interested laymen all telling each other
"actually, the latest theory is that they *did* live in swamps after
all!"

*The Today Programme* should be ashamed of itself for running such
nonsense.  **In scientific terms, it's on a par with Young-Earth
Creationism** or Geocentricism.  And that wouldn't have been hard for
them to have found out.

I wonder if we could get them to run a retraction?

No.  No, they did not. Despite what this clown had to say on this morning’s BBC Radio 4

 Today

Programme. (That’s occasional SV-POW! reader/commenter Paul Barrett in the back half of that audio clip, being amazingly restrained.) Turns out that the published work this interview is based on is this one in

 Laboratory News

.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

BBC Radio 4 fail in their duty of care to their listeners

Did sauropods support their weight by living in vast shallow lakes?