Colonial history and global economics distort our understanding of deep-time biodiversity

Abstract

Sampling variations in the fossil record distort estimates of past biodiversity. However, compilations of global fossil occurrences used in these analyses not only reflect the geological and spatial aspects of the fossil record, but also the historical collation of these data. Here, we demonstrate how the legacy of colonialism as well as socio-economic factors such as wealth, education and political stability impact research output in paleontology. Re- searchers in high or upper middle income countries contribute to 97% of fossil occurrence data, not only leading to spatial sampling biases but also generating a global power imbalance within the discipline. This work illustrates that our efforts to mitigate the effects of sampling biases to obtain a truly representative view of past biodiversity are not disconnected from the aim of diversifying our field.

When fossil clades ‘compete’: local dominance, global diversification dynamics and causation

“…Still, there remain artefacts that are not easily overcome. Virtually all broad fossil biodiversity studies reflect the preponderance of work by past and present researchers in more developed countries and associated influence from greater numbers of surveyed locations that today reside in the Northern Hemisphere [68,69]. What we and others present are 'snapshots' based on what is currently known and then what subset of this knowledge is included in a given analysis.…”

Digging deeper into colonial palaeontological practices in modern day Mexico and Brazil

“…This would not only be destructive to the local scientific community, but also to individuals that make use of these fossils for cultural purposes [3,139]. The inadequate, or complete absence of, law enforcement aimed at protecting palaeontological resources has allowed nations with considerably greater access to funding to exploit these resources, hindering scientific development in the country of origin and leading to the skewed pattern of global knowledge production in palaeontology we observe today [14]. It is also important to note that nations with greater access to funding owe this wealth, in great part, to the extractive colonial practices they have been carrying out for centuries.…”

“…Raja et al . [14] also show that Latin American countries contribute significantly to palaeontological research in the region, with Brazil and Mexico being the leading countries in the region after Argentina. At the time of publication, the Brazilian Palaeontological Society (SBP) has 376 associates and the Mexican Palaeontological Society (SOMEXPAL) has 142 members.…”

“…This structure of colonial science—derived from the practice of science in the colonies—has given rise to ‘scientific colonialism’ in the post-colonial world, some of whose extractive aspects are sometimes referred to as parachute science [4–7], helicopter research [8,9] or even parasitic science [7]. Within scientific colonialism, middle- and low-income countries are perceived as suppliers of data and specimens for the high-income ones, the contributions of local collaborators are devalued or omitted, and the legal frameworks in lower income countries are trivialized or even ignored [6,10–14]. In turn, colonialist nations owe their wealth to these extractive colonial practices that have existed for centuries, allowing them to accumulate knowledge, power and financial resources.…”

“…In turn, colonialist nations owe their wealth to these extractive colonial practices that have existed for centuries, allowing them to accumulate knowledge, power and financial resources. These extractive practices persist in the field of palaeontology to this day [13,14].…”