NSF-sponsored
workshop
"Priorities in the Solid Earth Sciences"
on Saturday, October 26, 2002
Report to NSF (2003): http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/Ben/SES/ises2003.pdf
Motivation
The motivation for the workshop is to begin to organize the solid-earth
sciences. 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 the future at NSF, as can be seen from
the recent organization of hydrogeologists (CUHASI). For the solid earth
sciences to remain as a viable, fundable field of scientific inquiry, we must
organize ourselves, set priorities and 'sell' our science.
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 scientific community. That is the motivation for this 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, Geoinformations (or some
kind of digital database for geological information), and DLESE. 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. This approach
has been the strength of our community and will play a significant role in the
future.
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 would bias the meeting toward the agendas of the organizing
committee. Unlike other top-down initiatives, we want the recognition of the
important processes to come from the community. We also chose to organize by
tectonic environment because, among other reasons, it cuts across the way
funding is currently provided by NSF and allows investigators from different
sub-fields to interact with each other.
We also recognize the need to discuss instrumentation and facilities, as these
are critical to current 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 is expensive and requires appropriate laboratory
facilities and technical support associated with it. Consequently, the best
approach for instrumentation support may be associated with a research plan for
the Solid Earth Sciences, which will enable the NSF to plan appropriately within
its instrumentation and facilities program.
What we want from each group of leaders, from the different tectonic
environments, is a list of the processes and key scientific questions that need
to be addressed, with a sentence or two 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. The
role of the leaders from the facilities end is to determine what facilities are
required to meet these goals. These leaders are expected to contribute to the
scientific objective goals, and the leaders from the scientific objective are
expected to reciprocate. This interaction is critical.
In addition, it is also clear that education is a critical part of future NSF
funding. Rather than having education as an add-on once the priorities are set,
it is critical that the educational component is considered even in the research
plan. Education is inherently part of the research initiative. We should
consider the feedbacks from education and research, what activities can enhance
these feedbacks, and what facilities are necessary for solid earth science
education.
The product of the workshop and how to get there
We must produce a white paper from this workshop. It is an opportunity to
explain the exciting opportunities in solid-earth sciences. As a leader, you
will be asked to directly contribute to the writing of this white paper. We also
hope to gain community coherence and take a step toward better organization.
It may not be immediately obvious how to go from discussion of scientific issues
to producing a coherent white paper that discusses research priorities for the
next 5-10 years. Here is one scenario for doing so, and your role as leaders.
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) Assessing 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 should also compile
these on lists (time is probably insufficient to show these to the entire
group), and synthesize a simple set of key priorities for presentation to the
entire Workshop (remember, the White Paper will require an Executive Summary,
and the key priorities will be central to this product).
Phase 2: Morning Session
3) 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. It requires that the
leaders come able to quickly synthesize apparently disparate ideas. These
processes should be written on overheads and presented to the entire group.
Phase 3: Leaders speaking to the whole group.
We are asking that the leaders 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, how can the educational components 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? Leaders should compile the generated
ideas as lists and synthesize these into a simple set of key priorities for
presentation to the entire Workshop.
Phase 5: Late afternoon session
Identification of 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.
Leaders should compile 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 able to be
supported by our funding. These lists should be synthesized into a simple set of
key priorities for presentation to the entire Workshop.
Exactly how the day proceeds depends on you, as leaders, as well as the interaction between different groups. 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 obtaining
funding, we need an organizational system that connects the various subfields,
has a voice at NSF, and can facilitate large and creative scientific ideas.
Again, rather than dictating what these goals should be as an organizing
committee, we would like the community to 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. 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 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.
Tentative Workshop structure
Saturday, October 26, 2002, Denver, CO
8.00 am Welcome and overview
Goal: why we need to establish priorities for the Solid Earth Sciences (a short
rationale and abstracts from attendees will be sent to participants before the
Workshop)
10-minute welcome (M. Brown/B. Tikoff)
Previous meeting summaries (20 minutes)
5-minute goals of workshop (M. Brown/B. Tikoff)
20-minute questions/discussions
5-minute summary of arrangements of the breakout sessions, and introduction of
the breakout group discussion leaders
9.00 am Coffee (30 minutes)
9:30 am Breakout Session 1
Goal: assessment of research priorities - integrating the Solid Earth Sciences
by defining common research priorities by type geologic province (but unlike the
EarthScope project, not necessarily U.S.-based, since understanding processes
and not the North American Continent will be the priority in the Solid Earth
Sciences agenda).
Four breakout groups (discussion leaders to be determined by discussion with
appropriate invited participants during the early summer). For each research
priority area, we expect to begin the debate about:
1) Identification of major research problems.
2) How to make an integrated approach at studying these research problems.
3) Identifying the processes involved, in order to compare with processes in
other regions.
1) Active Margins (Leaders: K. Cashman, H. Tobin )
2) Ancient Orogens (Leaders: J. Morrison?, A. Glazner)
3) Mid-continent, Precambrian, and Deep lithospheric processes (Leaders: R.
Rudnick, S. Bowring)
4) Basins and Extensional Regimes (Leaders: B. Wernicke, P. Scholle?)
11.00 am Breakout group spokespersons report to the whole workshop
5 minute presentations, 5 minutes discussion of priorities (4 groups)
20 minutes discussion concerning integration of the 4 sets of research
priorities into a single common set of priorities for the Solid Earth Sciences
12.00 noon Lunch (1 hour)
1.00 pm Integration of Teaching and Research - J. Tullis
1.10 pm Building Capacity in the Solid Earth Sciences--Intellectual, Facilities
(or Infrastructure), and Human - D. Mogk
1.20pm Breakout Session 2
Goal: to identify prioities for education and outreach derived from session 1;
to identify synergisms among research, education and outreach in the Solid Earth
Sciences.
The research agenda forms the foundation for developing priorities for
facilities and education activities. In particular, we anticipate the meeting
will establish for each priority research area a set of related educational
priorities. For each research priority area, we expect to begin the debate
about:
1) NSF is increasingly calling upon PIs to incorporate educational components
into their research proposals. How do we integrate research and teaching in
order to 'lower the boundary' between the two?
2) What are the critical barriers (if any) to teaching this topic at the upper
division/graduate level, and what is needed to eliminate them? How do we use the
integrated approach this workshop intends to foster to facilitate teaching
students how to solve open-ended problems?
3) What aspects of this topic should be included in introductory level
undergraduate courses? What is needed to make this possible given the large
number of people teaching out of field at this level?
4) Do the answers to the above questions in any way change the way we look at
research priorities/facilities?
1) Active Margins (Leaders: Tom Gardner?, K. Furlong)
2) Ancient Orogens (Leaders: S. DeBari, C. Teyssier)
3) Mid-continent, Precambrian, and Deep lithospheric processes (Leaders: D.
Mogk, S. Marshak)
4) Basins and Extensional Regimes (Leaders: T. Simo?, M. Person)
2.45 pm Tea (30 minutes)
3.15 pm Breakout Session 3
Goal: to identify infrastructure requirements and common research facilities to
support research and education priorities and enable participation by scientists
in the full range of academic institutions; and, to evaluate technology and IT
needs, both for field-based activities and in mathematical modeling and
computational science in support of the Solid Earth Sciences;
Multiple breakout groups (discussion leaders to be determined by discussion with
appropriate invited participants during the early summer):
Geochemistry and Geochronology (including instrumentation, laboratory facilities
and experimental requirements)
(K. Hodges, J. Patchett?)
Petrology, Rock Mechanics, and High P,T experimental deformation (including
instrumentation, laboratory facilities and experimental requirements)
(G. Hirth?, B. Carlson)
Active Tectonics / Geomorphology and Geological Geophysics (including the
requirements of field-based activities)
(R. Arrowsmith, D. Burbank)
Field-oriented Petrology, Sedimentology, and Structural Geology
(K. Klepeis, B. Dorsey)
Experimentally-oriented (analogue or small-scale) Geomorphology, Sedimentology,
and Structural Geology
(C. Paola, B. Venderville?)
Mathematical modeling and computational science in the Solid Earth Sciences
(P. Koons, G. Bergantz)
4.15 pm Breakout group spokespersons report to the whole workshop
Presentations of a simple set of key priorities only (maximum 5 minutes) from
each group. We will attempt to leave this lists of key priorities up (via
overhead) for discussion during tea.
4.45 pm Open discussion about the future
The Workshop Planning Committee will introduce a proposal to establish an
Integrated Tectonics Forum (ITF) as the mechanism for ongoing discussion of
priorities in the Solid Earth Sciences (outline rationale included below; it
will be included as an abstract so that everyone has it in advance of the
Workshop), including a management structure for such a group, frequency of
meetings, relationship to other Institutions in Earth Sciences (particularly
GSA, AGU, and AGI), membership, etc.
6.00pm Sponsored (finger snack and dip) reception with a cash bar
Format for abstract submission
THE UNIQUE CONTRIBUTION OF THE SOLID EARTH SCIENCES TO GEOLOGY
Anonymous <anonymous@geol.unl.edu>
Laboratory for Significant Contributions, Department of Geology, University of
Neverland, Wonderful Park, XX 99999-0000
Please follow the style of this exemplar abstract, and send as a file attachment
to Michael Brown <mbrown@geol.umd.edu> and Basil Tikoff <basil@geology.wisc.edu>.
Use up to one page (about 500 words) with 1.1" left, 0.9" right, 1" top and
0.75" bottom margins. Use 14 pt type for the title (CAPITALIZE FIRST LETTER OF
ALL SIGNIFICANT WORDS, USE SMALL CAPS FOR REMAINDER, USE BOLD) and 12 pt type
for the body of the text, use Times New Roman throughout. We will collate
abstracts into one document in alpha order with a common style and paginate for
electronic circulation before the Workshop. Please send your abstract as soon as
possible, but by the end of August in any case.
Contacts
Mike Brown
...................
Basil Tikoff
Geology and Geophysics
University of Wisconsin - Madison
1215 W Dayton St.
Madison WI 53706
(608) 262-4678
Fax: (608) 262-0693