Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 22 April 2009 |
Nature
| doi:10.1038/news.2009.383
Corrected online: 30 April 2009
News
Indian fossil find resolves fraud accusations
Early example of multicellular life discovered in Vindhyan hills.
A decade-old dispute over the authenticity of Indian fossils that are some of the earliest examples of multicellular life seems to have been resolved. As a result, an Indian researcher has been cleared of simmering suspicions of specimen tampering.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
It is a pity that the national science journalists refuse to acknowledge the turned to be pioneering work when foreigners are ready to do the same. Scientific findings can never be said final. That is how research works.Science is also not restricted to borders. Do such scientific jornalists do science and find evidence before calling some one's work fraud? If it is all about reporting, they should just do the job sincerely and correct mistakes to avoid mis understandings.
Thanks to Bengtson and his team for their work on Vindhyan fossils and for clearly stating that R J Azmi's fossil disoveries from Vindhyan sections were absolutely true. Questions raised on his fossils by a set of palaeontologists in various fora and media at times were in very bad taste; Geological Society of India should take note of S V Srikantia's observations that are not going well with this welcome development for Azmi, an Indian geologist
Today is a great day in Indian Geology when somebodies claim was found truth after one decade.Is thee anybody who will return the golden time to Dr.R.J Azmi who lost all that time in frustration and guilt for fruad which he has not done.Some Scientific persons(mafia) those who think they are above all and immune to any Judicial system just like political leader.They must apolize to Dr.Azmi for their act.It is high tme before accusing anybody for fraud we must see ourself inside our heart whether we are capable or not for preaching at high moral ground. Himanshu Kumar Sachan
It is indeed Great Golden Day for Dr. R. J Azmi and the Indian Geoscience community. It is not Just Dr. Azmi's Claim that authenticated, infact it is authentication of Indian geoscience. It is pity that world had missed many such important contribution for nearly a decade. Now it is real time to discuss on actual problem of Vindhyan!
It is great that a different group could reach the same conclusion that of Dr. Asmi's. I think he can be proud as a great scientist now. Whenever somebody go against the establishment, they will be resisted. This has happened throughout the history of science from Copernicus, to Galileo and recently to Dr. Mitra who challenged Stephen Hawkings. Fortunately, truth unfolds in itself though slowly. In Indian context, as scientists are lowly paid, it is particularly humiliating. So people should wait for the data and findings to play by itself rather than ostracising great minds. Even, the current financial crisis was predicted accurately only by Raghuram Rajan of University of Chicago. But, he was also ridiculed by the 'big' economists and scientists. I think Dr. Azmi, or Dr. Mitra need not be sad. They can think themselves as modern day Galileo or Copernicus. Those credentials are more important than all these media/establishment cacophonies.
The restoration of Dr. Azmi's integrity and honour makes all of us feel very happy here at BHU as our alumnus has been exonerated of the most heinous of all crimes in science--Fraud. Moreover, inter alia this is an excellent example of the fact that the process of science has intrinsic corrective mechanisms that eventually settle an issue. I think each one of us should appreciate that reckless judgements could deprive the accused of precious years of his/her life. I would go a step further, a substantial part of the history of science is replete with history of mistakes which have been either corrected or refined. That being so, it is perhaps the right of every scientist to make mistakes provided the motives are sincere. We must be wise enough to tolerate it. The whole episode has left me a bit sad for the slander Dr. Azmi had to tolerate but also with an optimistic note that we have reasons to have faith in the process of science. Mallickarjun Joshi Department of Geology Banaras Hindu University INDIA
True, it IS a shame anything like this could happen--But doesn't it demonstrate that (unfortunately) science is not just the realm of research and progressive understanding--it is also (all too often) the realm of pettyness and the spirit of 'If I didn't discover it, it must not be true'.
Title of the Paper by Bengtson et al (2009)PNAS, "The controversial Cambrian fossils of the Vindhyan are real" gives a strong blow to the people in Indian Geosciences community who declared the findings of Dr. Azmi fraud based on wrong intentions. At the same time, the credentials of the committee constituted by the Geological society of India for the purpose also comes under question whether the committee were compitent enough on the subject. It is a great pity that responsible people are asking further Dr. Azmi to prove himself rather than accepting his contribution when it has already been attested by the article appeared in PNAS. Therefore, I request every one who cares for Indian Geosciences that please come forward and resist such attempts from the self declared captons of Indian Geosciences. Such an effort is required so that no other scientist from the comminity has to pass through such a sad episodes. Further, we congratulate Dr. Azmi for his oustanding contribution in science through his findings. Original article at: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0812460106
The forms described by Dr Azmi are gradually gaining recognition by the world?s scientists. Therefore, the Geological Society of India now should keep the matter open for discussions in the process of retracting what they wrote about his work. Surprisingly the Geological Society of India, on one hand publishing papers (1, 2) that are not only highlighting Azmi'z work but also other reporting from Vindhyans like, Spriggina from Semri (3,4), and other Ediacaran forms (5, 6). Basu?s1 contention/hypothesis that "complex metazoans and even small shelly organisms possibly evolved in the Paleoproterozoic and that explosive biological radiation inferred only from the preserved is open to question" and "the rate of increase of the biological diversity was lower than the rate of preservation in certain geological intervals, especially immediately after extinction events" need attention. (1) Prasad, B. (2007). Orbuchevella and other terminal Proterozoic (Vindhyan) organic walled microfossils from Bhander group (Vindhyan Supergroup), Madhya Pradesh., Jour. Geol. Soc. of India, 69, 901-908. (2) Basu, A. (2009), Ediiacara fossils in Meso- and Paleoproterozoic rocks in Peninsular India extended Darwin, geol. Soc. India, 73, 528-536 (3) Kathal, P. K., Patel, D. R. & Alexander, P. O. (2000) An Ediacaran fossil Spriggina from the Semri group and its implication on the age of the Proterozoic Vindhyan Basin, central India. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Paläontologie, Mah., 6, 321-332. (4) Kathal, P. K. 1999: Should the life?s clock be backed by 400 million years? Current Science, 76 (6), 715. (5) De, C. (2003) Possible organisms similar to Ediacaram forms from Bhander Group, Vindhyan Supergroup, Late neoprpterozoics of India, J. Asian earth Sci., 21, 387-395. (6) Moitra, A. K. & De, C. (1999). Study and evolution of metazoans and microfossils in parts of the Vindhyan Supergroup at Satna & Sidhi districts. M. P., Rec. Geol. Surv., India, 131, 12-13.
TRUTH IS STILL THE SAME: AZMI HAD ERRED IN SEVERAL "DISCOVERIES" WHICH LET HIM DOWN An impression is being given that Dr Rafat Azmi had been wronged by Geological Society of India & /or Mr S V Srikantia and he was innocent or has been vindicated by the new discovery.Actually Geological Society of India had erred in not publishing what I wrote and what several other colleagues wrote about Dr Azmi's several works and total conduct as a scientist. S V Srikantia could avoid using word "foreign" as science is universal and not Indian or foreign; but even if a million experts get tonnes of "fossils" from Vindhyans, the doubts remain about Dr Azmi on several counts and are compounded by his selective silence. Dr Azmi was a very credible researcher in Tal but in case of Vindhyans and some other discoveries to my surprise, instead of proving his point scientifically before community of scientists he had gone to the extent of sending me a notice to me to apologise or face legal action (endorsing copies to media, Geological Society of India & even my university officials) but when I invited him to Chandigarh he avoided to face discussions before scientific community on his conduct during Vindhyans as well as his background of controverial claims in Nainital, Garbyang and Spiti. Like Dr V J Gupta, Dr Azmi wrongly concluded a particular age for the rocks in these areas and then proceeded to report fossils of ages which cannot occur in those rocks. Details of these "discoveries" were e mailed by me and are already on record with Dr KSJ. In case of Nainital, Dr Azmi had submitted an abstract which was published and the "discovery" was presented from "Tal" of Hanuman Garhi , Nainital which actually was Infra Krol and much older than the "Tal" presumed by Dr Azmi; two of his co-authors in writing withdrew from the paper and he finally never published that discovery of "Tal" Shelly Fauna" from Infra Krol he had mistaken as Tal. All this episode is on records of Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology. Let Dr Azmi or his friends deny it!It was in response to questions by Nature's correspondent Dr KSJ that I had sited this aberration to say the truth about Dr Azmi's credibility as a "discoverer" of fossils. My obervations had sneaked into a PTI report in Indian media. So far he has not accepted my challenge to publish his Nainital "discovery" which would have been acid test of his honesty and not this new and exciting discovery by others from the VIndhyans. Dr Azmi's evasion is his undoing.Azmi's doggedness in Vindhyans is praiseworthy though obsessive. He could make genuine mistakes as a scientist in Vindhyans but not in Nainital which he has evaded. Olique certificates of honesty furnished to Dr Azmi by these coauthors renowned colleagues cannot help him too much.Moment they read my note they would drop support for his honesty. Like them I also respected Dr Azmi. It is sad that his later "discoveries" erased all his credit unfortunately putting under cloud a rather booming career of a very successful palaeontologist. In this context I had said like Dr V J Gupta, he too had crossed the thin line between honest science and fake science.Readers may recall I had put my career at stake as a whistle blower in V J Gupta's case. I agree Azmi is not even a patch on V J Gupta. The new reports are indeed welcome but do these really vindicate Azmi? I feel the euphoria for him shall soon die down. The attacks on S V Srikantia and Geological Society of India, Bangalore are uncalled for. NATURE should publish my objective observations given on e mail to Dr K S Jayaraman.Truth is never partial, honesty too is always 100 %. Questions shall be answered if we can have an open debate with Dr Azmi in presence of all interested scientists. An open debate on all issues Vindhyans, Nainital, Garbyang & Spiti is being ducked. Why should honest geologists duck debate and then outsorce abroad their defense? Let Azmi defend himself scientifically on all issues convincingly, I too offer to defend him. But shall he? Professor Arun D Ahluwalia, Chairman & Head, Geology Department, Panjab University, Chandigarh,India(+919878684441; arundeep.ahluwalia@gmail.com)
The paper of Bengston et al ( 2009) is an eye opener for the entire scientific community. Since the time Azmi (1998) first published the results of the fossils from Vindhyan, scientists have been engaged in debate regarding the age of the Vindhyan Supergroup. Such debates are welcome as any exotic scientific discovery generally faces the inertia of the fellow scientists so far as its acceptability is concerned and it takes time to get things established. Infact this is how science runs. Unfortunately, failure to thoroughly investigate the rock samples and find the similar fossils by others led to accusations against Dr. Azmi of fraud and scientific misconduct. I am sure, to some extent, this has prompted Bengston et al (2009) to entitle their paper in a peculiar manner ?The controversial ??Cambrian?? fossils of the Vindhyan are real but more than a billion years older?. The first part of the title really addresses the issue of false accusation against Dr. Azmi while the second part gives importance to the absolute ages to which Dr. Azmi has reservations. As Editor of the book ?Micropaleontology: Application in Stratigraphy and Paleoceanography (Ed. Devesh K Sinha)? where the first detailed report with localities, stratigraphy and plates of the fossils were published by Azmi et al, I feel immense pleasure that the findings have been independently verified by Bengston et al ( 2009). It is time to do some introspection and inculcate a culture so that in future scientists are not afraid to report something new considering the mental agony and infuriation faced by Dr. Azmi for last ten years. Dr. Devesh K Sinha, Department of Geology, Centre of Advanced Studies, Delhi University, Delhi-110007
iam a researcher myself and understand how difficult it is to interpret data especially something like this. Iam certain it was the ignorance of the field and hasty decision of the reporters which led to this event. Things have changed now. With the advancement and technology transfer between countries it has become easier to verify such data. It will be highly appreciated if scientific reporters take more time and follow multiple test to confirm something like this to avoid hurdle in the growth of science. I strongly feel that the reports who commented it as fraud earlier should apologize. It may not compensate for the 10 years the scientist have lost but definitely a feel of moral victory. Once again Dr Azim...kudos to you!!!!
Posted on behalf of S.V.Srikantia: I wish to clarify on a reference made to me in the note ?Indian fossil find resolves fraud accusations: Early example of multicellular life discovered in Vindhyan hills. By Rex Dalton & Killugudi Jayaraman. K.S.Jayaraman made a telephonic call to me probably on the 20th April 2009. As my cell phone indicated a missed call, I called him back. He referred to the full paper published by Bengtson and co-workers (2009). I replied I had not seen the full paper and had seen only an abstract some two years back . He promised to send me the same which he did promptly later. He said Azmi expressed to him that his position with regard to Vindhyan fossils had been vindicated and he expected Society to retract their earlier comment. I told him that was not the policy of the Society to comment on the work published in other journals and it is for Azmi to write separately and publish. I requested Jayaraman to read the note ?Vindhyan Fossil Controversy? (Jour. Geol. Soc. India, v.55, June 2000), for any clarification. Now I find under an amusing heading ADVERTISEMENT Jayaraman mentions: ?The society's vice president, geologist S. V. Srikantiah, says that a retraction cannot be based on the results of foreign researchers. "It is for Azmi to prove he was right?," he told Nature?. I actually said in other journals and I never said ?results of foreign researchers.? This, unfortunately, has given scope for most uncharitable and in a few cases vituperative comments on me in particular and the Society in general. This inadvertent insertion should have been avoided by Nature. Science knows no boundary and it does not distinguish nationalities and the present writer is the last person to make such distinctions. The present writer recalls that he was the person who encouraged Azmi to publish his findings and collected at Dehradun the manuscript of his first paper on his fossil find and even suggested to Society to send the same to Martin D. Brasier as the referee for the paper. On receiving the comments of the referee the Society gave priority to Azmi?s paper and also to subsequent comments and replies. When there were strong criticisms on Azmi?s work by many premier organizations like Geological Survey of India (GSI) based on their field work and laboratory study, and Lucknow University, Lucknow, the Society organized a field trip to the fossil locality, along with Azmi and research workers from GSI and other universities to provide him an opportunity to defend himself. If he had failed to convince other fellow research workers, the Society can not be blamed. These details are already published (Jour. Geol. Soc. India, v.55 June 2000) which majority of those who have commented may not have read it. No other Society elsewhere would have taken so much care and scientific interest as the Geological Society of India in a controversy of this nature. Society is a facilitator. It is for the research workers to defend their work based on reproducible facts. We have to exercise caution before accepting any new discoveries. Journals should not become tabloids with screaming headlines. Therefore, some of the comments as appeared in the website, in this context, on the Society and on the present writer are most unfortunate to say the least. This is not science. Neither the Society nor the present writer resorts to words like ?fraud ? Sobriety is the hallmark of the Society. It cares for ethics in science. We should not trivialize a scientific issue and should not go to media for certificates of support. Harsh words and violent arguments do not solve scientific issues. None of the comments have touched upon the scientific aspects of the issue. Controversies are not new to Indian Geology. The age of the Krol remained uncertain for over a century despite arguments for and against Permo-Carboniferous age. Reproducible and correctly identified fossils discovered by research workers finally settled it as Neoproterozoic. The presence of organic remains in the Vindhyan has been variously known from a long time. From time to time these have been evaluated by paleontologists. At no time personal issues were involved. Jingoism is not conducive for growth of science. The findings of Bengtson and coworkers have added a new dimension to Paleoproterozoic fossils. They have also corroborated the Paleoproterozoic age of the Vindhyan by isotope dating that had already been proved by robust dating (Ray, 2006). For anyone who has an understanding of the Purana rocks in Indian Geology knows that Cambrian age was incompatible with the known data of profuse columner stromatolites in the Vindhyans and other supporting dates provided by intrusive kimberlites which suggest a definite Proterozoic status of the Vindhyan. Presently the problem is one of paleontology. Azmi again has an opportunity to correct his identifications of fossils, reinterpret the data and publish the same, instead of seeking support and blaming others. Controversies remain as long as fossils are not reproducible, identifications are uncertain, stratigraphic columns are confused and ages are not replicated. Science needs sober assessment.
"For a long time I am following the controversy surrounding the fossils finds by Dr. Azmi.Several years ago a report written by your Science Correspondent Pallav Bagla contained the photograph of my own hands displaying the controversial porcellanite rock supposed to have yielded fossils. After the recent publication of a paper by Bengtson et al. in PNAS, I have gone through various comments appearing in Nature News and found only your commentary as sensible and unbiased. Other than Srikantia,Mallicarjun Joshi, Devesh Sinha, A.D.Ahluwalia and Sachan, all other commentators are unknown in the geological fraternity and therefore I have no interest in evaluating these those comments written by ghost authors. Comments by most of these authors swing from "Blind Support" to "Blind Rejection"of Dr. Azmi as a credible researcher. It is quite clear that none of the commentators eulogising Dr. Azmi have cared to read the paper by Bengtson et al. , nor have they read any of the paper written by by Azmi and his co-workers. In all these comments there are elements of misplaced euphoria and effects of "blindly support the colleague" syndrome. Stephan Bengtson et al.seem to enjoy politicking in the field of science. The "eye catching" title for the fossil controversy is more of an "eye wash" so that others can have a better vision. On the contrary, it has created more blurred vision than it was before. The authors claim to have provided " independent confirmation of Azmi's report of "Cambrian" like fossil ( the word "like" added by Bengtson et al.)". Being involved in the study of Precambrian sedimentary rocks for the last several decades and Vindhyans succession in particular,I fail to understand how Bengtson et al. could claim to have prooved Azmi's fossils as "REAL", when they have not even studied a single sample from the locality from where Azmi first reported the so called "Cambrian Small Shelly Fauna !!! There is absolutely no novelty in reporting microbial mats, tubular filaments and segmented tubes which are already known from the works of S.Kumar,McNaminn, Stan Awarmik, Anbarasu, Manoj Shukla and several other workers. Hence, the paper by Bengtson's paper at best can be considered to have provided some additional data to our existing knowledge pool for the Paleoproterozpic Lower Vindhyan rocks. By no means Bengtson's report substantiates or supports what Azmi has been advocating all these years. It would be uncivilized to challenge a fellow geoscientist for unscientific approach but I would not hesitate to invite Bengtson et al. to demonstrate maceration of porcellanitic shale with 10% Acetic acid , the rock from which Azmi had initially reported a rich assemblage of SSF!!!. It is absolutely clear that Bengtson et al. did not collect any sample from the locality near Maihar in the Sone Valley. from where Azmi reported his first SSF. So, where is the "independent confirmation" as claimed by these authors ? Rich biota in the Janki Kund carbonates near Chitrakut are already documented in a thesis by Anbarasu submitted under my guidance nearly a decade ago. Therefore, by reporting microbial mats, and septate filaments etc from a locality other than the one which is the main focus of the controversy does not absolve Azmi from the misdemeanor of creating global paleogeographic confusion about the extent of the Cambrian sea. It is worth recording here that the Paleoproterozoic age of the Lower Vindhyan stromatolitic carbonates is known since 1993 when Jonathan Russell dated my stromatolitic collection from the Vindhyan sections by Pb/Pb method and posted 1652 M.Y age for the Lower Vindhyan carbonates from Maihar which formed a part of his Ph.D. thesis to the University of Oxford, England submitted under the supervision of Professor Stephan Moorbath. These findings were presented by me at the Jadavpur Conference on Vindhyans in 1994 where the entire audience dubbed this presentation as audacious. These results never got published but are still available in the archives of the Oxford University. Fuinally, according to Bengtson et al. there is no Cambrian taxa or SSF. There is no metazoan embryo. No annulated tubes. Then, what Bengtson et al. have proved to be REAL ? Sansationalism is not a good scientific trait. It should not be appreciated, even if it is created by a Nobel Laureate. Posted by D.M.Banerjee, Professor of Geology (Retd), INSA Senior Scientist, University of Delhi ______________________________________________________________________ Prof. Dr.D.M.Banerjee, Fellow, Indian National Science Academy