The Starchild Problem

Any potentially important scientific discovery is invariably met with skepticism and dismissal from a large portion of the scientific community.

One example is the ongoing debate about whether Homo Floresiensis (the "Hobbits" found in Indonesia in 2003 [1]) is actually a new species of  "Homo" (human), or simply a bizarre deformity [2]. The Hobbits were discovered under strict scientific conditions [3], overseen and peer-reviewed every step of the way, with a large and ever-increasing body of evidence to support claims of discovering a new Homo [4][5][6][7]. Despite this evidence and the discovery of the partial remains of at least nine other "Hobbits" [8], many skeptics in the scientific community still insist they are not a new species at all, but merely "microcephalic dwarf[s]" [9]. These skeptics insist it must have been a community of dwarf Homo Sapiens, despite the fact that the skeletons do not exhibit features consistent with dwarfism or Homo Sapiens [10]. When an official report published in "Science" revealed that the skull was not the result of microcephaly [11], critics were quick to suggest a new possible explanation: nanocephaly [12].

This parallels the experience of the Starchild Project, which has faced a great deal of opposition to the idea that it might be even a new type of human deformity, let alone anything more contentious. In addition to challenges posed by the skull's uncertain provenance, experts approached with the skull are unimpressed by the name "Starchild," which clearly suggests an unscientific bias toward the skull belonging to a child from the stars. The relatively few experts who have agreed to examine the Starchild skull have given mixed responses. Those who look at the skull only briefly will often dismiss it as a cradleboarded hydrocephalic, or some other well-known deformity, a few of which are discussed further here. Those who have seriously studied the skull and the test results that have been obtained are uniformly unable to explain the skull's composite characteristics [13].

The choice of name was admittedly a mistake, however, the Starchild Project team has always tried to maintain appropriate scientific skepticism and technical diligence throughout the testing process. That testing process has failed to explain the physical composition of the skull, or the unusual bone it is comprised of. Neither has it been able to uncover any similar example anywhere in the world. Respected craniofacial surgeon Dr. Ted Robinson, M.D., LMCC, FRCS (c),  in Vancouver, B.C., was one of the few experts who undertook serious and detailed examination of the skull, after which he reported having undertaken "an extensive review of current literature on craniofacial abnormalities, which failed to uncover a single similar example...it seems to be unique not only in my personal experience, but also unique throughout the past history of worldwide study of craniofacial abnormalities."[14]  Absent any similar example on Earth, the unusual step of considering the possibility that it may not be entirely native to Earth, becomes somewhat less unusual. However, when the scientific community is so reluctant to accept an apparently obvious new species of Homo, it is virtually impossible to expect them to willingly tolerate the far more extreme notion that proof of intelligent extraterrestrial life may exist in the Starchild skull.

References

1. John Vidal, “Bones of contention, The Guardian (online), 13 Jan 2005.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1388500,00.html> (15 Nov 2006)

2.Michael Hopkin, “Will the hobbit argument ever be resolved?” News@Nature, 6 Aug 2006.
<http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060821/full/060821-12.html> (Nov 16 2006)

3.P. Brown, T. Sutikna, M. J. Morwood, et al., “A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia,” Nature (online), 431: 1055-1061, 28 Oct 2004.
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/full/nature02999.html> (Nov 16 2006)

4.BBC News,“'Hobbit' joins human family tree,” BBC NEWS (online), Oct 27 2004.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm > (16 Nov 2006)

5. Michael Hopkin, “Old tools shed light on hobbit origins,” Nature, 411: 559, 31 May 2006, corrected 2 June 2006.
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7093/full/441559a.html> (16 Nov 2006)

6. M. J. Morwood, R. P. Soejono, R. G. Roberts, T. Sutikna, et al., “Archaeology and age of a new hominin from Flores in eastern Indonesia,” Nature (online), 431: 1087-1091, 28 Oct 2004.
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/full/nature02956.html> (15 Nov 2006)

7. Hillary Mayell, “Hobbit-Like Human Ancestor Found in Asia,” National Geographic News (online), 27 Oct 2004.
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html> (Nov 2006)

8. Discover Magazine, “More Hobbit Bones Discovered,” Discover Magazine Web Archive, 14 Oct 2005.
<http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives-archive/more-hobbits/> (16 Nov 2006)

9. Robert D. Martin, Ann M. MacLarnon, James L. Phillips, William B. Dobyns, “Flores hominid: New species or microcephalic dwarf?” The Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology (online), Wiley-Liss, Inc., (2006) vol. 288A, no. 22, Abstract.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ar.a.20389> (Nov 16 2006)

10.Natural History Museum, “Latest in the Homo floresiensis debate,” Natural History Museum Archives 2005 (online), 3 March, 2006.
<http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2005/march/news_3734.html> (16 Nov 2006)

11.Paul Rincon, “Hobbit was 'not a diseased human,'” BBC News (online), 3 March, 2005.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4308751.stm> (16 Nov 2006)

12. Ibid.

13.Ted Robinson[a], “A Preliminary Analysis of a Highly Unusual Human-Like Skull,” StarchildProject, 25 Sept 2004, 3.
<http://www.starchildproject.com/Reports_Robinson.html> (Nov 17 2006)

14. Ibid.