Paleontology provides insights into the history of the planet, from the origins of life billions of years ago to the biotic changes of the Recent. The scope of paleontological research is as vast as it is varied, and the field is constantly evolving. In an effort to identify “Big Questions” in paleontology, experts from around the world came together to build a list of priority questions the field can address in the years ahead. The 89 questions presented herein (grouped within 11 themes) represent contributions from nearly 200 international scientists. These questions touch on common themes including biodiversity drivers and patterns, integrating data types across spatiotemporal scales, applying paleontological data to contemporary biodiversity and climate issues, and effectively utilizing innovative methods and technology for new paleontological insights. In addition to these theoretical questions, discussions touch upon structural concerns within the field, advocating for an increased valuation of specimen-based research, protection of natural heritage sites, and the importance of collections infrastructure, along with a stronger emphasis on human diversity, equity, and inclusion. These questions offer a starting point—an initial nucleus of consensus that paleontologists can expand on—for engaging in discussions, securing funding, advocating for museums, and fostering continued growth in shared research directions.

In 2006, the World Bank's private sector lending arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), introduced eight Environmental and Social Performance Standards (PSs) to define IFC clients’ responsibilities for managing their environmental and social risks, including those related to cultural heritage. Since their introduction, the PSs have evolved into a de facto global standard that other development banks and many private sector banks, insurers, and development proponents have voluntarily adopted to help manage their own risk exposure. Although the widespread adoption of such policies can be viewed positively as a reflection of good governance, the PSs were never designed with this purpose in mind. This article traces the development of cultural heritage policy within the World Bank Group, then critically examines the IFC PSs as they relate to cultural heritage, drawing attention to the elements in need of revision to better reflect internationally recognized good practice for the management of cultural heritage. Equally important, we recommend the development and implementation of a bespoke cultural heritage framework for the private sector.

Reuse and sharing of archaeological data are tied to ethics in data practice, research design, and the rights of Indigenous peoples in decision-making about their heritage. In this article, the authors discuss how the CARE (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) principles and Indigenous data governance create intellectual space for archaeological research. We show how archaeologists can use this framework to highlight hidden costs and labor associated with the “data ecosystem,” which are often borne by Indigenous nations and communities. The CARE framework gives voice to Indigenous peoples’ concerns around data sharing, curation, and reuse; ways we can redress these issues; and strategies that facilitate Indigenous nations and communities in deriving collective benefit from research. In archaeology, these efforts include greater work on heritage legislation and policy, repositioning Indigenous peoples as active stewards of their data, and building capacity in digital methods and ethical data practice. Each Indigenous nation and community has its own interests, values, and protocols, and we suggest paths to bring data practice into alignment with the CARE framework.

Radiocarbon dates on marine shell and other materials of marine origin appear significantly older than contemporaneous samples of terrestrial/atmospheric origin. Misunderstandings regarding the mechanisms that give rise to this “marine reservoir effect” (MRE), the terminology used to define it, and the mathematics used to describe it cause many coastal archaeologists to distrust or misinterpret marine shell dates. The recent release of a reformulated 14C calibration curve for marine samples (Marine20), which necessitates recalculation of all local reservoir age corrections, may add to the confusion. Here, we review the benefits of dating shell; provide a plain-language explanation of the mechanical, chemical, biological, and cultural processes that give rise to age disparities associated with the MRE; and offer advice to archaeologists intending to date marine shell. Our hope is that these comments will not only aid archaeologists in the planning and interpretive stages of research but also assist in assessing the reliability of legacy chronologies based on marine materials. More broadly, we encourage careful evaluation of all sources of uncertainty in all 14C chronologies, whether based on terrestrial or marine materials.

In response to Steve L. Martin's critique of our recent paper we provide further evidence in support of our central contention: that geophytes were a nutritionally important part of the precontact diet, and that they functioned as dietary, cultural, and economic staple foods for many peoples of the Pacific Northwest.