Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers
In 2000, a group of leading geoscientists concluded that the research agenda
for the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the geosciences should “develop
the understanding society needs to maintain a healthy and habitable planet.”
In the report, NSF Geosciences and Beyond 2000, they stressed the need
for integrated studies of “interacting physical, chemical, biological and
geological processes” in order to satisfy the needs of decision-makers
for accurate, real-time information to set policies for hazard mitigation and
resource use.
These conclusions were echoed and extended by a report issued early this year
entitled Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life and Society
in the 21st Century. The NSF Advisory Committee on Environmental Research
and Education urged increased emphasis on research that will “integrate
spatial, temporal, and organizational scales, draw from many disciplines, and
facilitate the synergy that results from partnerships among governmental, academic,
and private organizations.” This concept of environmental research draws
not only on traditional geological and biological fields, but also on engineering,
mathematics, computer science, economics, and social and behavioral sciences
in order to address major questions that no single discipline would be likely
to tackle, or perhaps even to pose.
In an attempt to capture the depth of integration needed to accomplish a comprehensive
understanding of environmental systems, the committee characterized the term
“environmental synthesis” by four main activities:
What is the source of this growing interest in interdisciplinary work, of the
daring to raise questions about exceedingly complex systems that cross a vast
range of scales? At least part of the answer lies in the growing sophistication
of the instruments and observing systems at our disposal to study the environment.
Other factors include increased modeling, computation and data-management capacity;
the prospect of more resilient sensors and more extensive sensor networks; and
reliable communications technologies that facilitate collaboration by talented
teams from around the world.
Also, the need to understand the primary processes in the world around us is
becoming increasingly urgent: The footprint of human activity increases and
shifts each year as populations move, demands for resources increase and the
human influence in major biogeochemical cycles becomes more pronounced. We must
understand the impact of these changes in order to protect long-term global
security and prosperity.
Of note to geoscientists in this report is the increased emphasis on understanding
the complete system, in which we must consider the activities of the biota and
of humans along with their physical foundation. Interdisciplinary investigations
must extend to include meaningful collaborations with biologists and with social
scientists. By including these factors, the report’s synthesis approach
becomes both challenging and intriguing.
In the past, the geosciences community has mobilized to address questions associated
with global change. This call for environmental-synthesis research shares many
of the same characteristics and is certainly as long-term and as visionary.
The results would ultimately provide a scientific basis for problem solving
across a wide range of environmental issues. One attractive feature of the approach
is that it clearly defines the scientific basis for efforts like sustainable
development or “place-based” environmental science.
One focus for early response to the report is capacity building, for example,
cyberinfrastructure — a suite of critical tools and research for supporting
a diverse array of data, modeling frameworks, development tools and hardware.
Cyberinfra-structure is critical for synthesis of observational data and models,
for mechanisms of collaboration, and for formal and informal education. Other
critical capacity issues are sensors and sensor networks and the development
of major observing platforms and networks. Inattention to these issues will
substantially weaken advancement across all areas of environmental science.
The approach also highlights the many complex environmental questions that tease
the intellectually curious. Consider, for example, the possibilities for exciting
and important investigations of complex systems that involve water. Studies
of coastal margins, estuaries, rivers and lakes would be all the more stimulating
if they were to take into account a variety of perspectives, from traditional
physical (hydrology and climate change) and biological sciences (biogeochemical
cycles, agriculture, ecosystems, pollutant and nutrient flow) to engineered
structures, manufacturing, human uses and municipal policies.
While the geosciences have traditionally focused on Earth’s structure and
geochemistry, they recently have recognized the effects of biological activity.
We now know that biotic factors place limits on geochemical cycles and affect
atmospheric composition, weathering and climate. Incorporation of such integrated
investigations into the repertoire of geoscientists has enriched the discipline.
As a result, we see that geosystems are at the heart of complex environmental
systems and essential to understanding their processes and predicting their
future state. For this reason, I urge geoscientists to participate fully in
the next stage of learning about our planet and its relationships to its living
passengers. Step up to the challenge!
|
Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers |