Think you have a rough job? Try looking for bits of 4 million-year-old bones in an enormous desert, after having spent years negotiating the bureaucracy of funding agencies and unstable African governments.
Ann Gibbons, correspondent for Science, takes us inside the world of paleoanthropology. In an interview with Martha Henry, acting director for the Knight Fellowships, Gibbons talks about her new book, a chroncile of how the quest for the oldest human fossil has unfolded over the last fifteen years.
Martha Henry: You’ve written for Science for over 15 years and worked at newspapers for ten years before that, what made you finally write a book?
Ann Gibbons: I had an idea I could not resist. I had gone to France on assignment for Science to write a profile of Michel Brunet, a paleontologist who had discovered a 7-million-year-old skull in Chad. When I got there, he told me: “I am poor. I’m French. I am crazy. And I am a socialist.” Then, he got in his Mercedes. He was so fascinating that I wanted to write more than a profile. Then, I thought it would be even better to write about the race between Brunet and other researchers.
The human story of the quest to find the earliest ancestors, as well as the science, was so compelling that I could not pass it up, even though I had 4-year-old twins and a 7-year-old daughter at the time. I had wanted to write a book for a long time, as well, because I had wanted to write in my own voice, in a style that was different from the way I write for magazines. I also wanted to have the time and space to write in-depth, to be able to read historic documents, to travel to the fossil sites I had written about. A book gave me the time to do all of that, and to make sense of the science I had been writing about for a decade. It helped me put the science into context.
MH: The title of your book is The First Human, rather than The First Humans. Why? And what other titles did you consider?
AG: Originally, I had proposed the title The Human Race, to play off the notion of the race to find the earliest ancestor. But it created the expectation that I would discuss the origin of races, which took place in the past 100,000 years—well after the time frame of my book, which focuses on the dawn of humankind more than 4 million years ago.
I considered dozens of titles, ranging from Deep Dirt (just kidding) to Becoming Human (discovered that it had been used, as have many good titles in this well-trammeled subject matter). I was aware of the trend toward one-word titles, such as Blink or Collapse, but could not find one that worked.
Finally, the editor-in-chief at Doubleday decreed that it would be The First Human. We chose the singular rather than the plural because the race ultimately is about finding The First Member of the human family. The also-rans are important, of course, but there is something special about the first, the oldest.
|
MH: The scientists portrayed in your book behave worse than people on Desperate Housewives or Survivor. You mention espionage, sabotage, a billionaire’s wife, revolutions, armed intimidation, theft, feuds and affairs. Do you think paleoanthropology is more cut-throat than other fields of science?
AG: No more cut-throat than high energy physics, the race to sequence the human genome, or White House politics, for that matter. Any field where resources are scarce, researchers compete intensely.
In paleoanthropology, the competition is fierce because of limited access to fossils and prime fossil sites. There are only a few places of the right age with well-preserved fossils where scientists can also get permits to search for fossils. As a result, the most aggressive researchers often succeed. This usually means there is a sort of natural selection where survival of the most aggressive and persistent scientists pays off (conversely, less aggressive researchers thrive in primatology, where being an observer who blends into the background is an asset). Paleoanthropology obviously is one of the most cut-throat fields in the world, and that is part of what makes following these scientists so fascinating. In many respects, the quest to find our earliest ancestors is the ultimate survivor story.
MH: As Science’s primary writer on evolution, you knew that after The First Human was published, you’d continue to report on many of the scientists profiled in the book. I assume you wanted them to still take your calls after they’d read it. How did that affect what you wrote?
 |
| The author at a site in Kenya |
AG: I realized early on that by writing the book, I jeopardized my ability to work with long-term sources. Indeed, several researchers warned me that I would become enmeshed in controversy and that I should “stick to the science” and avoid the politics. However, science is a social process—personalities determine who gets access to the data, in the form of fossils and fossil sites. It even influences how fossils are interpreted. Therefore, my book would only be honest if I told the story of the quest, with the human story, warts and all.
Like any good writer, I write for my readers, not my sources. But when you use fiction techniques to describe the “characters” who happen to be living scientists, you make judgments that show your own bias or opinion about the people you write about. I had to expose myself and my own views in writing the book more than I ever would do as a writer for Science, which concerned me and kept me up at night in the beginning.
I tried to be fair, and I tried to be conscientious about not fanning tensions between teams, but it was inevitable that I would stir things up just by asking questions. So far, all my sources are still talking to me, although a few were unhappy about some of the unflattering descriptions and events I included.
In many ways, now that I know the researchers and the beat so well and have a better understanding of the social context, I’m a better writer. But there is an interesting tension between getting close to your sources and earning their respect or trust—and keeping enough independence that you can give up sources and find a new beat, if need be.
|
MH: How long did it take you to write the book?
AG: It took me two years from signing the contract with Doubleday until I delivered the unedited manuscript. However, I also spent about six months writing a book proposal. I also spent another six months with a fair amount of work on the edit, fact-checking, images, etc. that went into publishing the book.
MH: Most of the early humanoid fossils you discuss were found at harsh, remote sites in Kenya, Ethiopia and Chad. Which sites did you visit? Did your visits alter your understanding?
AG: Absolutely. There is no substitute for seeing researchers at work in their milieu—and for trying to do the work yourself. I spent four weeks on two separate trips to two field sites in Kenya. I sifted dirt to search for fossils for hours on end in the Turkana desert. Even though I was only in camp for a week or so, I got a real taste of the tedium and challenge of working in the desert from dawn until dusk. I could understand how these researchers would grow to love being away in the field, where they could focus on the fossils away from telephones, teaching demands, etc.
I also gained new respect for how a team leader has to be both intrepid and brilliant at logistics—managing teams in dire conditions, and keeping a positive attitude takes real talent. How many research teams eat, sleep and live together night and day in dire conditions for weeks, if not months, on end? Then throw in scorpions, snakes, malarial mosquitos and temperatures that reach 110 degrees in the shade.
The most successful fossil hunters also know how to prioritize—balancing exploration and reconnaissance of new sites with work at known, productive fossil sites. Much has been made of the so-called “Leakey luck.” I concluded that there was no substitute for hard work and strategic thinking. I only got a real understanding of all of this by going to the field.
MH: Do you have a favorite fossil?
AG: No, not really. The skull of Toumaï is hard not to love, since it is 95% complete, but I also like the toe bone of Ardipithecus kadabba, the partial skeleton of Lucy, the thighbone of Orrorin. I found part of a tooth of the 4-million-year-old Australopithecus anamensis, so I guess I have a special fondness for that species.
MH: There’s an enormous difference between searching for bits of fossilized bone in an inhospitable landscape and dating those bits in a lab using state-of-the-art technology. You deftly describe the “decades-long rift between scientists who studied molecules and those who analyzed fossils.” Does that rift still exist?
AG: The rift between fossils and molecules has closed for many researchers, but not all. Both fossils and molecules suggest that the ancestors of chimpanzees and humans diverged about 5 million to 7 million years ago. Most paleoanthropologists are familiar with the genetic studies, and even use their results to be strategic about what windows of time would be most interesting to explore in the fossil record. A few paleoanthropologists are still suspicious of molecular clocks, and think the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans was alive earlier, but they are in the minority.
The bigger rift lately is between field workers who find the fossils and “armchair” anthropologists who analyze them, but don’t search for them. The anthropologists that do the incredibly hard and dangerous work of finding these fossils don’t want to be forced to show unpublished fossils they are still analyzing to colleagues who teach, but do not search for fossils. But this means the entire field has to wait until the fossils are thoroughly analyzed by their discoverers—a process that can take more than a decade in some cases. This has created tension because everyone depends on a relatively small number of researchers to provide the data (in the form of fossils) that they all require for their work.
MH: National Geographic comes up again and again in your history. A number of scientists mention being inspired to pursue a career in paleontology because of articles they read in the magazine as children. Geographic has funded a number of high-profile expeditions. How would you describe National Geographic’s influence on the public perception of paleontology?
AG: National Geographic’s influence has been enormous. Not only did magazine articles about the Leakeys entice many of the current generation of researchers to think about becoming paleoanthropologists, but National Geographic has underwritten a great deal of research over the past four decades.
The magazine has glamorized the quest for early human ancestors, which has certainly made the Leakeys famous and drawn many researchers into the field. But the magazine has made the quest seem too easy—and in the early years promoted the misleading myth of a tanned fossil hunter on camelback stooping down to pick up fossils. By focusing on one scientist’s “discovery” of a fossil hominid, National Geographic often fails to convey the truth that this science is done by huge interdisciplinary teams with Ph.D.s who specialize in everything from fossil pollen to the isotopic chemistry of the soils.
As a writer for Science, which competes indirectly with National Geographic, I also am concerned that National Geographic obtains special access to anthropologists by making them explorers-in-residence, who are contractually required to give exclusive interviews to National Geographic before speaking with other journalists. (A researcher in my book complained that National Geographic tried to “buy” him. He declined). The back story on the magazine’s purchase of the long-lost Judas scrolls also gave me pause. I dislike the notion of any publication paying for access to researchers or artifacts.
But I also think the magazine should be recognized for its extremely important role in educating millions of people about human origins and evolution. It is absolutely compelling, with stunning graphics and photos. I love reading it with my children.
MH: Paleoanthropology is a very dynamic field. What’s the most important new finding since you finished the book?
AG: No new species of fossils have been found that are older than the key fossils featured in the book. But more fossils of some of these species have been found and will soon be published—a partial skeleton of a 4 million-year-old fossil from Mille, Ethiopia is being unearthed, as are new bones of a 4.4 million-year-old fossil. New fossils also have been discovered that should help fill in the gap from 3 million to 2 million years ago, between Lucy’s genus—Australopithecus—and the earliest members of our own genus Homo.
MH: You were a Knight Fellow in 1987-88. I recently looked over your application from that time. When you came to MIT, you intended to study high-energy physics, astronomy and atmospheric sciences. What happened?
 |
| Ann Gibbons in 1988 with MIT President Paul Gray |
AG: I did study physics, astronomy and atmospheric chemistry. But I also took a course in paleoanthropology from David Pilbeam at Harvard’s Peabody Museum, on the suggestion of another Knight fellow. It was pure serendipity.
Once I began to study evolutionary theory, it became a lens through which I could understand the world around me better, from man’s place in nature, to primate politics in the office, to the development of my own children.
After my fellowship, I became a newspaper science writer in San Diego where I covered astronomy, physics and other sciences. I saved my vacation time so I could travel to Africa where I visited a fellow student from Pilbeam’s course—a Kenyan who was earning his Ph.D. at Harvard. I also visited anthropologists at their research sites, who were recommended by Pilbeam. I free-lanced a story to Science from that trip, which lead to my being hired as a senior writer at Science. I was hired just as the highly regarded science writer, Roger Lewin, left Science, which meant that I got to cover evolution. So, my year at MIT changed my life in many ways.
MH: What kind of attention has your work received from the Creationist and/or Intelligent Design community?
AG: I am often quoted out of context. In particular, they like to take the disagreement among paleoanthropologists and use it to try to show that the science is controversial (and, therefore, that evolutionary theory is controversial, which is not true). Although researchers disagree about the details of how to draw the human family tree and which fossils are hominids, there is more consensus now than ever before on the broad outlines of human evolution. It’s quite remarkable, in fact, to see evolution unfolding in our own human family—and now there are several lineages of hominids that clearly show evolution from one type of early human ancestor into another.
MH: You teach science writing at Carnegie Mellon. In writing this book, what did you learn that you’ll pass on to your students?
AG: Some practical tips: As you report, gather information that you might need later to “show” rather than tell readers what is important. Take photos of anything you might want to write about later. Write down descriptions of people and places while reporting every day—sounds, smells, everything that might make a scene come alive later. Date every interview and keep your notes organized. I set up a portable filing system where I had a file for each chapter, and files for each team and subject.
Get organized before you go to the field. A good book proposal forces you to think about how to organize the material—and can be a really useful road map for how to get the work done. Budget your time. Draw up a schedule on a calendar with specific deadlines for chapters so you won’t miss your deadline.
Even more important: Trust your instincts. Write about what you love, what you cannot resist exploring, and that enthusiasm will help sustain you when you’re bogged down two-thirds of the way into the book; working nights and weekends because you’re already behind schedule; sick of obsessing about the descriptions of key researchers who even pop up in your dreams; and eager to write about something, anything that is new and different. (In my case, anything that happened in the past 4 million years, as opposed to the 4-7 million year time frame of The First Human). Learn to cherry-pick the ideas that are worth exploring. As with scientists, prioritizing is extremely important for journalists.
MH: When you die, where would you like your bones to end up?
AG: Donated to science, if scientists want them. I have no desire to become a fossil myself.
Ann Gibbons was a 1987-88 Knight Science Journalism Fellow. For more than a decade, she's been a correspondent for Science magazine, where she specializes in writing about evolution. She also teaches science writing at Carnegie Mellon University.
Ann found her first fossil at the age of 11, when she was living in Spain. You can see more photos of the sites Ann visited in Kenya or learn more about her book, at her web site.
Click here for more Inside the Story interviews.
