Whenever GPR or similar remote sensing is used to assert graves (or other sensitive forensic claims), researchers must publish a short, machine‑readable provenance statement: archival checks performed, excavation history of the site, all raw GPR data, reviewer names/affiliations, and any prior disturbances (e.g., septic fields, archaeological test pits). This should be a precondition for public press releases that treat hits as human burials.
— Requiring provenance and open data for forensic remote‑sensing claims would reduce misinformation, protect vulnerable communities from false narratives, and set a public standard for evidence before political or memorial actions.
Kristen French
2026.01.07
78% relevant
Both ideas demand that scientific claims about sensitive material evidence (GPR scans of alleged graves; DNA traces on artworks) be accompanied by transparent provenance, raw data, and archival checks before public announcements. The Nautilus article reports a bioRxiv preprint claiming faint Y‑chromosome signals from a Leonardo drawing but emphasizes contamination and weakness — exactly the sort of claim that would benefit from the provenance and open‑data practices advocated in the matched idea.
2023.06.23
100% relevant
Dorchester article cites the 1924 septic trenches, undisclosed GPR report, anonymous reviewers, and unretracted public claims by Dr. Beaulieu and local officials as the concrete failure modes this rule would prevent.
← Back to All Ideas