Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers
You will,
of course, remember that "ancient history" is reserved for the times
of the Greeks and the Romans and their classical languages, before the fall
of the Roman Empire in A.D. 475. A spooky thought hit me as I was preparing
my letter for this issue: Geology is an especially ancient history and our language
is super-classical and super-arcane.
Perhaps this classification has something to do with the fact that at an all-time
high, scarcely more than 15 percent of school children in this country received
even a brush with the subject. Could there be more significance than we realize
to the fact that, when asked about geology, most people respond with "dinosaur,"
if they respond with anything at all? At the same time, there is also ample
evidence that a new style of geology has been evolving. It is examples of the
new relevance of geology, with growing social applications and imbedded new
science, that we highlight in this issue.
Visions of a lahar, surging toward a schoolhouse filled with children, roil
up from our feature, "Paths of Destruction: The Hidden Threat at Mount
Rainier," by Geotimes Managing Editor Lisa Pinsker. Research over
the past 20 years has shown that lahars have been geologically common in the
Puyallup River valley and that they may arrive swiftly and silently, without
the announcement of a volcanic eruption. This knowledge has led to development
of a lahar warning system and a school evacuation plan that requires construction
of a bridge over a tributary river. What a good example of relevant geology
(including new science) supporting science-based community action. This is the
transformation that our very ancient-history and classical-language science
is undergoing in order to achieve new relevance and escape "dinosaurism.”
In another example of evidence-based community service, in "In Harm's Way:
Population and Volcanic Risk," John Ewert and Christopher Harpel discuss
risks of volcanic eruptions in Central America, where approximately 2.7 million
people are at risk from volcanic hazards. Only Indonesia has more people at
risk. The authors attempt to quantify risk, rank volcanoes by risk and arrange
priorities for development of mitigation (evacuation) plans.
David Hastings gives us rare insight into the history of geologists in the "Camelot"
of all government programs in his piece, "Geoscientists in the Peace Corps:
A Strategic Revisit." He summarizes ways in which the contributions of
volunteer geologists could be significantly enhanced for the benefit of host
countries. The problem of how to use geologists in a volunteer program is one
of implementing science-based community service. The Peace Corps should be an
elegant vehicle for doing so, but transforming geologists and bureaucracies
to successfully pull it off is nothing we have been prepared to do. The potential,
nonetheless, is a characteristic of what a transformed geological science will
look like.
Transformation of the science and escape from "dinosaurism" requires
that we apply a social outcome template. The Political Scene this month, by
Eloise Kendy and Kevin Vranes, emphasizes the need that legislators have for
solid information on significant issues, whether they are high-profile or obscure.
When geologists can fill the need, they provide a public service and develop
an opportunity to influence the right thing being done. This is yet another
example of the new relevance of geology; it is no longer enough to practice
the science, to learn and to understand.
Finally, Geologic Column authors Lisa Rossbacher and Dallas Rhodes focus on
the trials and tribulations of university geology departments. They identify
a "second culture" of university disciplines, including classical
studies and, yes, geology, that academic administrators tend to believe are
of too little value to keep around. The administrators are seeing us as dinosaurs
because we missed the signs that times are changing.
"What don't we know?" has been joined by "What do we need to
know?" as a driver of geologic research. Once we get over the sting of
accountability, the joy of simultaneous outcomes of both discovery and service
become exhilarating. Isn't it inevitable that our science evolve over time through
the sequence: description > process interpretation > prediction > mitigation?
Each successive stage accumulates new responsibilities and the need for new
science becomes more critical. Sounds like a bright future to me.
Thanks to our authors, whose works came together in such a play of colors.
Believe your compass,
Samuel S. Adams
Geotimes Editor-in-Chief
|
Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers |