Overview Email
If you are receiving this email, we have you listed as planning to attend the NSF-sponsored workshop "Priorities in the Solid Earth Sciences." The workshop will be held on Saturday, October 26, at the Marriot Hotel (GSA Headquarters Hotel). Please let us know as soon as possible, if you do NOT plan to attend.
The purpose of this email is to provide the context for the workshop. Because it is only for one day and the topic is so large, it is necessary that people come to the workshop with appropriate background information. Below we list the motivation, etc., for the workshop, which has three principle aims:
1) To mobilize and organize the Solid Earth Sciences community to promote what we do;
2) To recognize the importance of the Solid Earth Sciences to understanding Earth processes in order to facilitate future support for our work in the Solid Earth Sciences. We do not wish, and we are not able, to guide future research. Our aim is to provide a Forum for the generation of ideas about directions we, the Solid Earth Sciences community, would like to take, to organize ourselves to achieve these goals, and to inform the NSF of the goals.
3) To initiate a change within the community for integration of different approaches, data sets, and sub-disciplines, and to emphasize the symbiosis between research and education.
To achieve these aims, we realize that we need the acceptance of, and excitement in, the Solid Earth Sciences community.
Motivation
The principal motivation for the workshop is to begin to organize the Solid Earth Sciences to act as its own advocate. Most other scientific communities (physics, geophysics, oceanography, astronomy, etc.) are significantly ahead of us in this respect, and consequently are receiving more scientific and financial attention from funding agencies. Community-wide organization is clearly a necessity for the future, as can be seen from the recent organization of hydrogeologists (CUHASI); it provides a mechanism to advise funding agencies, such as the NSF. For the Solid Earth Sciences to remain as a viable and fundable field of scientific inquiry, we must organize ourselves, set broad priorities that agencies can use to enhance funding levels, and we must 'sell' our science and its relevance to society.
While diversity is one of the scientific strengths of our community, it is an organizational weakness. What we require is a focal point around which to rally the Solid Earth Sciences community. This is the motivation for the workshop: to provide that focal point. This is a particularly opportune moment to consider how to organize ourselves as a community, because of the emergence of large initiatives in the Geosciences, including EarthScope, Geoinformatics (GEON has recently been funded), DLESE, Nanotechnology and the recent ŒNeutrinos and Subterranean Science‚ Workshop involving both Physics and Earth Science. We believe that process-based science, and concurrent research and educational goals, can provide this focus. However, the workshop is less about the emergence of a single large initiative in 'Solid Earth Sciences', and more about setting broad priorities for inquiry-driven single or small group PI proposals. Historically, this approach has been the strength of our community; we believe it will play a significant role in the future of the Earth Sciences, but only if we promote the strength of our approach!
Goals of the workshop
You will notice that the organization of the meeting is by tectonic environment. We considered organization of the meeting by geological processes. However, we realized that we might bias the meeting toward the agendas of the convenors, whereas we want the recognition of the important processes to come from the community. We also chose to organize by tectonic environment because it cuts across the way funding currently is channeled through Programs such as Tectonics and Petrology & Geochemistry at NSF. This structure also allows investigators from different sub-fields to interact with each other.
We recognize the need to discuss instrumentation and facilities, as these are critical to current and future work in the Solid Earth Sciences. In common with the other physical and biological sciences, in Solid Earth Sciences we need a wide range of expensive instrumentation. Much of the modern instrumentation that supports Solid Earth Science requires appropriate laboratory facilities and dedicated technical support, particularly as the sophistication (and price) of each generation of instruments increases. In the future we may have to rely more on Instrumentation Centers than distributed analytical facilities, and this may require an even higher level of technical staffing to provide such service in these Centers. Consequently, the best approach for instrumentation and facilities support may be associated with a research plan for the Solid Earth Sciences. This will enable funding agencies such as the NSF to plan appropriately within its Instrumentation & Facilities Program.
What we want from the participants, divided into four different tectonic environments, is a list of the processes and key scientific questions that need to be addressed. These questions should be in the context of a justification/rationale for their importance to the future of Solid Earth Science and understanding Earth as a system. One aspect of the white paper, to be produced after the Workshop, is to compile this information and find the overarching process and questions that are the key priorities for scientific inquiry in every tectonic environment. As a group, we need to determine the instrumentation and facilities required to meet these goals. It is critical that we link the Instrumentation & Facilities needs to well articulated scientific (and educational) objectives.
In addition, it is clear that education of a technologically trained workforce is a critical part of the NSF mission. Rather than having a discussion of education as an add-on once the research priorities are set, it is critical that the symbiotic nature of education and research be accepted and the two elements be integrated from the start. Thus, education is inherently part of the research initiative in Solid Earth Sciences. We should consider feedback among education and research, identify those activities that will enhance these feedback relations, and determine what facilities are necessary for Solid Earth Science education. Additionally, we need to ensure that students coming into Graduate Programs in the Solid Earth Sciences have an appropriate background, and that they receive further training in Computational Science and Mathematical Modeling as necessary.
The product of the workshop and how to get there
We must produce a white paper from this workshop. This white paper is an opportunity to explain the exciting contributions from the Solid Earth Sciences to understanding the Earth as a whole. We hope to gain community coherence and take a step toward better organization.
Although we have identified leaders for the discussion sessions in breakout groups, we expect all to contribute to the discussion. It may not be immediately obvious how to go from discussion of scientific issues to producing a coherent White Paper that discusses research, education and facilities priorities for the next 5-10 years. Here is one scenario for achieving this objective, in the context of the schedule that you have received separately.
Phase 1: Morning Session
1) Recognition of key scientific questions (e.g., Is mantle deformation coupled to crustal deformation?). The leaders should compile these on overheads.
2) Assessment of what various disciplines bring to the table to solve the problem (i.e., geophysics: in situ deformation; field-based geology: examination of lower crustal and mantle rocks; geochemistry: depletion of mantle lithosphere, etc.) and how to integrate these approaches. The leaders of the groups will compile these as lists, determined by contributions from the participants, and synthesize a simple set of key priorities for presentation to the Workshop as a whole (remember, the White Paper will require an Executive Summary, and the key priorities will be central to this product).
Phase 2: Morning Session
Once the key questions are on the table, take an intellectual step backward and try to recognize the broad processes involved (i.e., geodynamics of lower crustal and mantle flow). THIS IS THE CRITICAL STEP.
Phase 3: Leaders from each breakout session will synthesize and articulate the major problems and key processes in each tectonic environment.
Phase 4: Early afternoon session
Using the key priorities identified (and, perhaps, the lists produced) in the morning, determine how the educational components can be enhanced and contribute to the research agenda (and vice versa). What facilities are necessary for education of the research community (outside of our own sub-disciplines), the education community, and undergraduate students? The generated ideas will be synthesized into a simple set of key priorities for presentation to the Workshop as a whole.
Phase 5: Late afternoon session
Identify the facilities that are critical to achieve the goals outlined in the morning [e.g., range, location (regional centers vs. distributed), technical support, access], including the facilities needed for education, and the impediments to achieving both the research and education goals. These include lists of currently available facilities, how these facilities could be shared in creative ways, required new facilities to meet the goals, and large-scale ideas for facilities that are presently not supported by present levels of funding in the Solid Earth Sciences. These lists should be synthesized into a simple set of key priorities for presentation to the Workshop as a whole by the leaders of the session. It should be made clear how investment in facilities follows from the scientific and educational priorities determined in the earlier sessions.
Exactly how the day proceeds depends on you, as participants. Our hope is that by the end of the day, we will have consensus among at least the major issues. This will be critical to writing a fair and representative White Paper.
Longer-term goals
If the Solid Earth Sciences are going to have long-term success in maintaing present levels and obtaining increased levels of funding, we need an organizational system that connects the various subfields and acts as an advocate for our community, and can facilitate large and creative scientific ideas. Again, rather than dictating what these goals should be, the Workshop convenors prefer that the community decide what is necessary and/or useful.
One possibility that has been discussed is the formation of an Integrated Tectonics Forum for the promotion of Solid Earth Sciences (Tikoff et al., abstract). This could be, in some sense, the geological counterpart to Earthscope.
Some possible roles include:
a) Meeting organization (annually and across sub-disciplines)
b) Integration with publications
c) Dissemination of information in the Solid Earth Sciences, including producing the broad-based support and integration of various geological needs into the Geoinformatics (GEON) and DLESE initiatives.
d) Enhanced communication, including list servers, web space, group sites, etc. Other intriguing possibilities include the formation of networks, similar to ongoing organization in the ecological sciences.
e) Education/Outreach
i) foster an integrated approach to Solid Earth Sciences education that combines the contribution of geology, geophysics, geochemistry (etc.) into a cohesive understanding of Earth processes in a Earth System framework;
ii) improve the integration of research and education in the Solid Earth Sciences by promoting successful models for educational components of research projects, transfer of research results to geology courses and the public, and fostering cohesive projects in the Solid Earth Education;
iii) increase use and contribution to the Digital Library for Earth System Education (DLESE).
Other ideas are expected to come out of this workshop. The point is to get the community thinking about working together in new, creative, and exciting ways.
