Yes, You Can Put a Price on a T-Rex (2015) | Hacker News Reader

Yes, You Can Put a Price on a T-Rex (2015)

npr.org

16 pointstlrobinson12 comments

There is a detective [novel by Douglas Preston](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaur_Canyon) (2005) exploiting the high value of fossils.

There's a reason why the U.S. government doesn't pay ransom money to terrorists - it would set a dangerous precedent.

While this doesn't necessarily have the same dire consequences, it's a shame that the door has been opened to scientific finds being co-opted for money.

I'll always look up to Jonas Salk, who refused to patent the polio vaccine. Some things shouldn't have a price put on them.

Personal property rights should always be paramount. I don't want the government or anyone else deciding to take something away from me just because a special interest group thinks they can make better use of it. The standard should be far higher than that. Sue is nothing more than a curiosity. I happen to like paleontology and science in general, and I'm glad that Sue is on display in a museum and available to study, but there's no argument I could make for taking it away from someone without fair market compensation.

Isn't land as personal property kind of a gray area though? After all, eminent domain exists. Just because the US Government allowed settlers to claim land in South Dakota a hundred years ago, doesn't relinquish any and every right to the land and its features/resources.

$ 7.6 million for people who don't want to read it

The Field Museum bought it

That's not the point of the story. It's actually about the T-Rex named Sue that was one of the first dinosaur fossils to be auctioned at an insane price, and kickstarted the whole fossil-hunting-for-money industry.

Also happens to be the most complete skeleton discovered of the most iconic dinosaur. The price was expected to be considerably above the average.

I feel pretty bad for the paleontologists who got screwed in the end after doing all of the work.

Fossil hunting for money could be a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, there will be a lot more fossil-hunting, meaning more fossils will be found. But on the other, commercial hunters are likely to be much less careful with fossils than scientists would be.

Anyone know how the tradeoffs work out?

Exactly what I came here for. Thanks. :)

I expect better headlines from NPR. It seems no news organization is free from enticing readers these days.

Cheaper vanity purchase than a sports team!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com