Should private buyers be allowed to own scientific specimens?

No, private buyers should not own important scientific specimens.

Absolutely not!

No, fossils are inherently part of the planet’s history and should be available to scientists for research and the general public to experience at museums.

No, but from a practical standpoint a more workable solution might be to apply a surcharge when items are sold, the surcharge being tax-deductible if the item is made available for future research.

No. I feel it commodifies scientific specimens and will ultimately deprive the scientific community and the world of the benefits. It also provides misguided rewards for scientific discoveries . As another commentor said, when these items are bought, WHO sold it? While I can't fault buyers so much but the sellers, you bet!

I do not believe private buyers should own rare items of scientific value - unless there are extreme (and enforced) strings attached, such as making the item available for scientific study by any researcher, educational institution, or scientific organization by appointment (in a reasonable period of time). Additionally, for appropriate items (fossils, geological specimens, etc.) the scientifically valuable item should be made available for viewing by the public in a suitable location (a museum, school, or library, for example) for a certain period of time out of every 24 months. Essentially, I believe ownership of a scientifically valuable item should come with responsibilities. Attaching enough responsibilities and obligations to the ownership of such an important item should discourage oligarch types from wanting to put a one-of-a-kind artifact in their living room for clout.

Important scientific items should not be sold to private buyers

NO!

I vote NO unless the buyer agrees to give scientists and the public access to at least view the fossil close up as in a museum.

The comments raise the question of who SOLD the fossil?? Who received the money paid at auction? Did a museum sell the fossil to raise funds to pay for other projects at the museum? or simply pay the rent and utilities?

In a word, NO!

No.

They all should be property of institutions that guarantee access to paleontologists.

What is any buyer going to do with such a specimen? Some weido might just hang it in a back room at home, but it is going to be expensive to maintain. Most buyers are going to show it off. People will see it, maybe as many as at a museum; maybe not. The owner might set it up in a public space and charge people to see it. It's kinda like owning land; land is just an expense to maintain unless you do something with it, like grow grass and raise cattle or sheep or goats, etc. Or grow timber and eventually make lumber, or grow seed bearing cover for birds and mixed wildlife. Whatever one owns is only rented for what remains of one's lifetime. The heir of the specimen then has to keep it up or sell it, most likely to a museum or another private owner who wants to show it off.

No, the dinosaur should be viewed by all, irrespective of their financial situation.

No, I don’t think wealth should be a tool for individuals to horde for themselves what naturally belongs to all.

It would be reasonable to have a system of categorizing fossils like living animals, to the extent they are considered common and in great supply, or limited supply, or quite rare, or incredibly rare, and this would drive whether they should be allowed to have private ownership and with that, to be legally traded/sold. There's always the economics of an item, and the value to the public as a rare or unique artifact. You can also include a tax of some kind - a rare collectors tax that says 25% of Gus's sale should go to the agency and museums that are there to manage and display the rarer side of the list.

Gus is extraordinary, but its also interesting to note that of the 100 or so different "finds" of T-Rex skeletons, none are complete, but of the 10-15 full skeletons on display, all have bones or bone fragments that are cast or 3 D printed replicas of other real artifacts found elsewhere, so I'd say once you have at least a couple or more of all the originals and have them scanned and available for re-print on a 3D printer, then the more skeletons reproduced, the better. the originals will still be far more valuable, but the ability to print the full size skeletons should at some point make the originals more fungible. Just to print all the bones for a full scale T-Rex would be quite an undertaking and probably costs tens of thousands to print and assemble. Our digital technology is going to allow us to do all kinds of things with these artifacts, and once we have all their genomes also digitized, then what? Not long before Jurassic Park becomes a reality……….

I don't think it's a problem. But the fossil should be available for public viewing, free of charge.

Large and scientifically valuable fossils should remain in the public domain, not part of private commercial sales.

No, private buyers should not be allowed to own these unbelievable specimens

Sometimes private ownership is a way to save something. That should be a key consideration.

I feel that dinosaur fossils should not be privately owned as they belong to the earth and to all the people.

As with art, private buyers have always sought prize specimens for their collections. That is their and the seller right of course, provided the items were obtained legally. Sadly however, that means those items are rarely if ever subsequently available to the public for viewing or to scholars for research.

For those reasons and more one can't help but feel that some type of agreement or assurance should be come with such sales to allow at least occasional access to such treasures for research or wider display to the public. One would also hope in the case of this superb T. Rex skeleton, that approved reproductions for museums were made before the sale.

Fossils of animals that became extinct over some given time period, e.g., neolithic, paleolithic, etc., should belong to organizations that provide for scientific study to gain historic perspective and education, not individuals.

Absolutely NO. They belong in places where the public and/or scientists can have access to them. For the uberrich, they are just a trophy or something to brag about owning.

No