Page 21 - gt1508

alarming Orwellian undertones of the hyperspecialization of our
times, which tends to stunt the human context of science.
It is essential for society to acknowledge and support untram-
meled inquisitiveness. Society, however, has a right to expect, in
return, knowledge and advice. We can serve both masters—
science and society—without compromising our integrity, but our
attitudes must change deeply. There must be less separation and
ranking of the “pure” and “applied” scientist, who should merge
to a considerable degree and to the benefit of all. We must attain
greater efficiency in our scientific work by utilizing our intellec- planetary geology and biostratigraphy. (4) We need more data
tual resources more fully. The right side of the brain must be used
as well as the left, intuition as well as logic, image as well as
language, in order to achieve greater knowledge and to place this
knowledge in the human context, where it belongs.
Communication must be more lucid and forceful, because
thoughts or knowledge unexpressed, or poorly expressed, are of
little public value. There must be more interaction with society,
and a greater breadth of interests and knowledge to make this
interaction possible.
I see a time of change, a time of stress, a time of opportunity,
and I look forward with hope to the whole person resurgent, the
scientist-philosopher, the citizen-scientist.
Epilogue
E.M. Moores
Some common themes emerge in the foregoing essays:
(1) The division between “basic” and “applied” will continue to
diminish as the same problems crop up in several fields; for
Geology – GSA Bulletin – Geosphere – Lithosphere
Special Papers – Memoirs – Field Guides – Reviews in Engineering Geology
example, the understanding of fluid behavior and transport
through fractured media is clearly crucial in such fields as
igneous and metamorphic petrology, sedimentology, stratig-
raphy, mineral resources, tectonics, or hazardous waste isola-
tion, but fluid transport through fractured media is still an
unsolved problem in geohydrology. (2) The U.S. needs a more
consistent national commitment to resolution of problems
involving earth science. (3) Episodic development, possibly
though catastrophes, is a more common geologic process than
previously thought, and it unifies the formerly separate fields of
collected properly—i.e., not randomly, but to answer questions
or test hypotheses.
One matter alluded to in a few of the essays is that the most
important question regarding the predictions for the next ten
years is not whether they will come true but whether we will be
around to find out. Must we continue, as Samuel Johnson put it,
to “roll helpless down the torrent of our fate”? What, if anything,
can earth scientists contribute to prevention of the ultimate
catastrophe? Several of the essayists suggest possibilities: (1) we
can continue to lend our expertise to efforts to verify any present
or future test ban treaties; (2) we can reduce mutual paranoia by
encouraging international scientific exchange and resisting
efforts to restrict academic freedom or the flow of information;
(3) we can provide decision-makers with our perspective based
upon our knowledge of geologic time, the rate of geologic
processes, the finiteness of Earth’s resources, and Earth’s
uniqueness in the solar system. We might point out that Homo
sapiens probably has only one chance, this one, to succeed. It
would be no big deal, geologically speaking, if he/she became
just another fossil.
Will these activities suffice? Probably not. What else can we do?
GSA TODAY | www.geosociety.org/gsatoday
21