The realization that ancient biomolecules are preserved in "fossil" samples has revolutionized archaeological science. Protein sequences survive longer than DNA, but their phylogenetic resolution is inferior; therefore, careful assessment of the research questions is required. Here, we show the potential of ancient proteins preserved in Pleistocene eggshell in addressing a longstanding controversy in human and animal evolution: the identity of the extinct bird that laid large eggs which were exploited by Australia's indigenous people. The eggs had been originally attributed to the iconic extinct flightless bird Genyornis newtoni (†Dromornithidae, Galloanseres) and were subsequently dated to before 50 ± 5 ka by Miller et al. [Nat. Commun. 7, 10496 (2016)]. This was taken to represent the likely extinction date for this endemic megafaunal species and thus implied a role of humans in its demise. A contrasting hypothesis, according to which the eggs were laid by a large mound-builder megapode (Megapodiidae, Galliformes), would therefore acquit humans of their responsibility in the extinction of Genyornis. Ancient protein sequences were reconstructed and used to assess the evolutionary proximity of the undetermined eggshell to extant birds, rejecting the megapode hypothesis. Authentic ancient DNA could not be confirmed from these highly degraded samples, but morphometric data also support the attribution of the eggshell to Genyornis. When used in triangulation to address well-defined hypotheses, paleoproteomics is a powerful tool for reconstructing the evolutionary history in ancient samples. In addition to the clarification of phylogenetic placement, these data provide a more nuanced understanding of the modes of interactions between humans and their environment.
Science is among humanity's greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions.