On Oct. 27, a 19.6-foot-long (6 meters) skeleton of Nanotyrannus lancensis known as "Jodi" was sold at Sotheby's in New York for $47,255,000, far exceeding its $6 million to $9 million estimate. The buyer and seller were not identified. It was the latest in a string of multimillion-dollar dinosaur auctions, following the $50.1 million sale of a T. rex (Gus) in July and the $44.6 million sale of a Stegosaurus (Apex) in 2024.
Fossils like Jodi, Apex, and Gus belong in public collections, where they can contribute to science and remain accessible for future generations. Not in the hands of private collectors.
There are three main reasons why. First: Fossils are evidence, not objects. A dinosaur's bones can reveal how it grew, moved, fed, and lived. They preserve traces of injury and disease, help reconstruct ancient ecosystems, and offer clues about the "rules of life" governing our world that scientists are still learning to interpret.
Jodi illustrates exactly why access to physical evidence matters. For nearly half a century, paleontologists debated whether Nanotyrannus was a distinct dinosaur or simply a juvenile T. rex. A lack of well-preserved fossils available for study only fueled the uncertainty. And then a remarkable specimen, once in private hands, moved into the public trust.
The fossil was uncovered in Montana in 2006 alongside a Triceratops. Dubbed the "Dueling Dinosaurs," it took until 2022, and an appeal in the state's Supreme Court, for the remains to be acquired by the Museum of Natural Sciences so they could be fully studied. This research provided a powerful new perspective, arguing that Nanotyrannus lancensis was a distinct dinosaur and, moreover, that a second species of Nanotyrannus once roamed the American West.
When access relies on a private owner's permission, repeatability is not assured, and science cannot proceed. A specimen might be available today but inaccessible tomorrow.
This hypothesis has big implications for the health of ecosystems before one of Earth's most severe extinction events — but it currently rests on the scant few Nanotyrannus specimens housed in public collections. Specimens like Jodi could uphold or dethrone it. Without access, we, and Jodi’s true identity, will remain in the dark.
It is hard to overstate the irony of Jodi's sale: a specimen recently listed as a juvenile T. rex now captures the world's imagination, and commands double the price tag, as a "Nanotyrannus." Yet if a similar fate had befallen the Dueling Dinosaurs and they had remained in private hands, we would not have known for certain that Nanotyrannus ever existed.
Scientific progress depends on researchers being able to compare specimens, test hypotheses, and revisit earlier conclusions. When access relies on a private owner's permission, repeatability is not assured, and science cannot proceed. A specimen might be available today but inaccessible tomorrow. This is why access to the evidence must endure.
This brings us to the second problem with privately owned dinosaurs. Digital scans cannot replace the original fossil.
Three-dimensional scans and digital models are powerful tools. We use them to measure bones, compare anatomy, share information, and educate the public. But digital models capture only the most superficial aspects of a fossil's story.
The auction took place on Oct. 27, with Jodi eventually selling for around five times the top estimate. (Image credit: Ben Levine, Courtesy of Sotheby's)To understand dinosaur growth, we examine microscopic structures inside fossilized bone through a technique called bone histology. We also analyze the chemistry of fossils to investigate diet, migration patterns, and metabolism. Such work requires physical samples, not just images of a bone's surface. We also need contextual data about the surrounding sediments, preservation mode, and ancient environment in order to explore questions about the ecosystems in which the animals once lived. Much of this information is lost in the rush to excavate and prepare fossils as quickly as possible for the auction block. It can never be reclaimed.
We cannot predict what novel technologies future researchers will employ to make new discoveries from old bones, or even which questions they will ask. Technology will continue to advance, bringing analytical methods we cannot anticipate. A scan made today does not guarantee that researchers will have the physical evidence needed for tomorrow's discoveries. Digital access should complement preservation of original specimens, not justify losing it.
Finally, private ownership cannot guarantee lasting public access. Yes, some private collectors financially support research and education and donate specimens they purchase. Those contributions are valuable. But the issue is not whether an individual owner is generous; it is whether access is guaranteed over time.
A temporary loan is insufficient. A loaned specimen can be withdrawn, sold, or inherited by someone with different priorities, situations that are becoming increasingly common in the U.S. and abroad. By contrast, a fossil deposited in a responsible public research institution is documented, cared for, studied, and made available to future researchers and educators in perpetuity. The question is not whether people should be able to admire dinosaurs; it is whether the evidence that helps us understand them will remain available to everyone.
Exclusive to Live Science Pro
Nor should museums consider selling scientifically important fossils to cover operating shortfalls. Collections are not ordinary financial assets to liquidate when budgets tighten. Selling an irreplaceable specimen provides a one-time payment while sacrificing future scientific potential. Museums need sustainable funding for collections care, research, and education, not pressure to trade away the very resources they exist to preserve.
Jodi's sale is complete, but the fossil's long-term future remains uncertain. With the buyer's identity undisclosed, the public cannot know what arrangements, if any, will ensure continued access for researchers and educators. We hope the new owner will make Jodi available for scientific study and public education, through permanent placement in a public research institution. But hope is not a substitute for a guarantee.
There is a better way to support paleontology. Enthusiasts who want to share in the excitement of discovery can fund fieldwork and research, endow curatorial positions, strengthen museum collections, or donate important fossils to public institutions where we can all learn from them.
Dinosaurs inspire wonder because they connect us to a world vastly different from our own. But their importance extends far beyond their power to captivate us. They are part of our shared natural heritage and an irreplaceable record of Earth's history.
We should measure a dinosaur's worth not by the price it commands at auction, but by the knowledge it can help us build, and by whether we preserve that opportunity for generations to come. Earth's history belongs to all of us, not to the highest bidder.
Editor's note: This article was updated on Nov. 4 at 8.22 a.m. ET to correct the year the Museum of Natural Sciences acquired the Dueling Dinosaurs.
Opinion on Live Science gives you insight on the most important issues in science that affect you and the world around you today, written by experts and leading scientists in their field.
Help us improve Live Science Pro: We're always trying to make our content better. Leave us feedback about Pro here.
'> When dinosaurs are sold to the highest bidder, we all lose The feelings would end abruptly when she finished breastfeeding and then appear again the next time she was about to release milk, according to a report of the case, which the patient co-authored. The patient was a breastfeeding counselor for the United States Department of Agriculture Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program.
Until the baby was about 18 months old, this phenomenon would happen every time the woman breastfed — about five times per day, on average. Unlike postpartum depression, which can cause persistent feelings of despondency, anxiety and mood swings in new parents, the woman felt "helpless, hopeless, [and] worthless" only during her milk release. She reported that she otherwise felt happy and bonded with her new baby.
What happened next: When her baby was 7 months old, the woman began meeting with a lactation consultant, who later co-authored the case report. They worked together to track the mother's symptoms over time, noting when negative feelings began and if any intervention made them subside or worsen.
The diagnosis: Because the woman's condition did not have a formal name at the time, she began calling it "dysphoric milk ejection reflex," or D-MER.
The case report authors initially suspected that fluctuations in the woman's oxytocin levels might be causing D-MER, since the hormone is released into the bloodstream prior to the milk ejection reflex during breastfeeding. However, external factors that are known to affect oxytocin levels, such as tobacco use, did not always trigger the woman's symptoms.
Next, they looked at dopamine. The chemical messenger's fluctuations during breastfeeding are less studied than those of oxytocin and prolactin, another hormone linked to lactation. However, dopamine levels have otherwise been connected to strong emotional responses. Activities that seemed to ease the patient's D-MER symptoms — such as taking the cold medication pseudoephedrine, smoking cigarettes or binging on chocolate ice cream — are also known to increase dopamine levels. Meanwhile, acute stress, which reduces dopamine, worsened her symptoms.
The authors hypothesized that an abrupt drop in dopamine prior to milk release might be a trigger for D-MER.
D-MER differs from postpartum depression in that the feelings of sadness are very specific to lactation. (Image credit: Image taken by Mayte Torres via Getty Images)The treatment: The woman began taking bupropion (better known by the brand name Wellbutrin), an antidepressant that increases the amount of dopamine in the brain. She saw a dramatic reduction in her D-MER symptoms within a day, and five days later, her symptoms were almost entirely gone.
However, she stopped taking the drug after a few weeks due to unwanted side effects (which aren't described in the report), and the symptoms came back. She then tried an herbal remedy containing roseroot (Rhodiola rosea), a plant historically used in some places to manage depression. Some recent studies suggest that compounds in R. rosea interact with receptors for chemical messengers in the brain; however, there is little reliable evidence demonstrating its purported therapeutic benefits, according to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health.
She took R. rosea three to four times per day, reporting that her symptoms became "much milder" but returned if she skipped a day. As her daughter grew older and the woman breastfed less often, the woman stopped taking the supplement. When the child was 3 years old and no longer breastfeeding, the woman's D-MER symptoms went away entirely.
What makes the case unique: Prior to this report, published in 2011, D-MER was not widely recognized or documented in the scientific literature, and there was no research into its causes or treatment.
The patient and co-author of the report created the website D-MER.org in 2007 to share information about the condition more widely. She hoped to raise awareness among medical professionals and to help breastfeeding people who experience this condition by providing resources and support and encouraging them to understand that what they were feeling was a physiological side effect of nursing. Since the site's launch, hundreds of visitors have described having negative feelings while breastfeeding, according to the report.
Over the past two decades, more case reports describing the condition have been published. In a 2025 paper in the European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, researchers estimated that roughly 14.2% of lactating parents experience D-MER and that 1 in 6 stop breastfeeding as a result. Dopamine is thought to play a part, but the exact cause of D-MER has not been definitively established in peer-reviewed research yet.
There is no definitive treatment for D-MER, although some have anecdotally found relief through techniques for stress reduction, such as meditation and breathing exercises, and by seeking support from partners, friends and breastfeeding groups online.
Short-lived negative feelings resembling D-MER have also been reported in people who are not lactating. These anecdotal accounts describe intense, negative feelings brought on by nipple stimulation. One online discussion group referred to this phenomenon as "sad nipple syndrome," according to the authors of the case report. As with D-MER, dopamine may play a part, but the overall neurochemistry underlying that emotional response is unknown.
Breastfeeding and parenthood can be an emotional roller coaster even under the best circumstances, the authors noted. In that sense, they explained, people with D-MER have "the same emotional peaks and valleys" as all new parents do. Yet the negative feelings that accompany D-MER are nonetheless different from the normal range of emotions in the parents of newborns, and they can cause extreme distress if they are not correctly identified and addressed as being specific to breastfeeding.
People with D-MER, the authors concluded, "serve as a reminder to us all that we do not yet have a complete understanding of human lactation."
For more intriguing medical cases, check out our Diagnostic Dilemma archives.
This article is for informational purposes only and is not meant to offer medical advice.
Can you guess the diagnosis in these strange medical cases? Find out with our diagnostic dilemma quiz!
'> Mom experienced 'extreme unhappiness' only when she breastfed and potentially damage vital organs.
NASA and other space agencies are working on ways to eventually send humans to Mars and beyond. Given these latest findings, would you travel to Mars? Vote in the poll below, and let us know your thoughts in the comments.
is rapidly falling out of orbit and could tumble back to Earth any moment now, the space agency says.
NASA predicts that the chances of Swift debris falling over a populated area are approximately 1 in 2,100. For comparison, the odds of a person being struck by lightning in their lifetime are 1 in 15,300, according to the National Weather Service.
NASA will continue to update their predictions as the reentry window draws closer.
The Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory is a multiwavelength optical, ultraviolet and X-ray telescope that launched in November 2004 on a mission to study the most powerful explosions in space. Initially designed for a two-year primary mission, the telescope ultimately spent more than 10 times that duration hunting for supernovas, gamma-ray bursts and black-hole-induced eruptions around the universe.
As Swift goes out with a fiery bang, it leaves behind a trove of scientific data, including contributions to more than 7,000 scientific papers so far, according to NASA. This number will only increase as Swift's final observations are processed.