Chris Rowan is a geologist specialising in the dark arts of paleomagnetism, and getting people to pay him to travel to exotic destinations for fieldwork. Having drilled up New Zealand during his PhD, and South Africa in his first post-doc, he now works at the University of Edinburgh.I've been pondering this question for a while now, and Brian's discussion about a possible geology blog carnival gives it some topicality: why is it that so few geologists seem to have exploited the possibilities provided by the internet? Even if our numbers are growing - I've just added a jealousy-inducing Antarctic seismologist to my blogroll - compared to other disciplines like biology, or astronomy, the number of active geology blogs seems disproportionately small. And its not just blogging: if you search under 'geology' at the PLos ONE website you get this:
You could possibly add the paper about the sounds generated by black smokers, to that list, but it's still pretty pathetic - it's no wonder that there is no Earth Science category on the front page. With only 10 papers published since the beginning of the year, the story is no more encouraging at the open access EGU journal devoted to Earth Science. At Connotea, only 125 papers have been tagged 'geology', compared to several thousands for physics, and 10,000+ for biology; and Ron, a real pioneer in these matters, was forced to withdraw his GSA session on the Web 2.0 and geosciences due to a lack of interest.
Such evidence is anecdotal, of course, but it does back up a general impression that in general, my fellow geologists don't really engage with the online world. The question is, why the reticence? A number of interacting factors spring to mind (and I'd be interested to hear other peoples thoughts on this). There's the large amount of time many geologists spend out of the office on field trips, which can often (horrors) keep you off-line for weeks at a time. Traditional geology is also a fairly low-tech affair, requiring little more than a hammer, hand lens and notebook (and the Mark I human eyeball will suffice in a pinch), which might point to a slight technological conservatism. However, the addition of the GPS unit to the toolkit suggests that new technology will be embraced if found to be useful, so I suspect it might be more to do with the lack of commonly used professional tools which serve to demonstrate - by changing the way that scientists work - that the internet has potential beyond saving you a walk down to the library to read the latest papers. On-line genome databases and the ArXiv seem to serve this purpose in biology and physics, respectively: perhaps, then, the awesomeness of Google Earth, and other tools for collating and displaying spatial data, will eventually serve the same role in geology.
One thing I can't believe is that the lack of geobloggers reflects a lack of interest in engaging with the public beyond that normally encountered in science. If anything, my experience has been the opposite: give a geologist an excuse to talk about rocks, and the problem is usually shutting him up. So my question to any geologists reading this blog, and don't have their own, is this: why not? Not only is blogging fun, but by making me pay more attention to news and results outside my particular sub-field, it makes me a better and more well-rounded scientist. Also, just as in teaching, the necessity of explaining basic concepts and new results to a less expert audience increases my own understanding of the subject in question. So there are sound professional reasons for dipping your toes into the blogosphere, even if you don't believe - as I do - that knowledge is there to be shared with as many people as possible, not hoarded, and it is a scientist's duty to assist in the sharing.
Of course, from a purely selfish perspective, the apparently small footprint of geology on the web has been to my advantage: although I'd like to think that I'm a fairly decent writer, some of the opportunities that have passed my way are at least in part a result of there being very few geobloggers to choose from. Nice for me, but not so good if you want to build up a community. And I do; being a part of Scienceblogs has shown me how much can be achieved, and how much fun can be had, when you get like-minded and committed people together on the web. So come on people, get blogging, tagging, and open accessing. Or do you want the biologists to have all the fun?
Comments
It is curious why there aren't scores of earth science bloggers...but, I think it is going to change soon...I can feel it! But, it is time to talk about it.
The field work aspect might be part of it...but most of us typically spend 80% of our time in office/lab and 20% in field (if were lucky)...so, you'd think that might be plenty of time.
And I agree with you...not only has my popular science-style writing improved (at least a little bit anyway) because of blogging, but so has my awareness of earth science in the news...and how earth science is reported in the news, for that matter.
Posted by: Brian | August 24, 2007 1:16 PM
In case you are not aware, geologist Chuck Wood maintains a photoblog: Lunar Photo of the Day (LPOD) - http://www.lpod.org
Okay, I cheated: he is primarily a lunar and planetary scientist. But his professional background includes earth-related work, and his blog covers a lot of geology. LPOD readers love all that technical stuff about rocks and geological processes: SEEKING ILLUMINATION - http://www.lpod.org/?p=1322
Posted by: Paolo Amoroso | August 24, 2007 1:58 PM
I know I don't really count as a geo-blogger, but I really do hope that Brian's earth sciences carnival gets off the ground and more attention gets paid to bloggers who talk about geology. I'm sure field work has a lot to do with it (it's not like being a lab where you can pop on the net and write something up while your PCR is running), but like Brian noted there's still plenty of time when not out and about.
Whatever the reasons though, I definitely hope that this blog and the geology carnival build up a stronger earth sciences community on the web.
Posted by: Laelaps | August 24, 2007 3:42 PM
Hey Chris, thanks for the publicity! As for being jealousy inducing, I'm not so sure. Right now I spend most of my time pulling my hair out trying to get my crazy experiment off the ground in some semi-professional fashion.
As for the question central to this thread, why are more Earth scientists not on the web, I'm not sure I have a sensible answer. Sure, we're often in the field, but fieldwork experiences make pretty good blogging material, to say nothing of the accessory photography.
It may be a numbers thing. I don't know the statistics for numbers of Earth scientists compared to, say, biologists or physicists, but I would imagine there being fewer of us around, and hence proportionately fewer bloggers.
Since I have started blogging, and keeping up with other blogs through the fantastic tool that is RSS, I have found myself much more connected with the goings-on both in the online and real world. I also agree with you that science and knowledge should not be hoarded but shared. This was what got me started in the first place!
Posted by: Alessia | August 24, 2007 6:53 PM
I wish there were more too. Is it because there are less geologists in academia than biologists and physicists? (Is that even true? It is where I study, but the wider world?) (And assuming that the largest proportion of blogging scientists are in academia - whether students or staff - which I suppose is another question altogether).
Posted by: magma | August 24, 2007 9:57 PM
I have spent the better part of 10 years in an effort, on the Internet, to educate Christian Creationists about geology and point out the errors of the doctrine of Young Earth Creationism. Unfortunately, not too many believers are geologists. Consequntly, there is a lot of misinformation circulating out there about the scientific method. I'm sure that many geologists don't post on the web because they don't want to get drawn into the debate surrounding this issue, IMHO.
Posted by: Gaines Johnson | August 24, 2007 11:34 PM
I'm sure some of it's numbers, but I think some of it might be that we just haven't hit a tipping point yet. New scholarly formats especially need a critical mass of people before they become respectable enough that anyone other than starry-eyed idealists will want to publish in them. I don't know where that's come from, historically, for other fields. I'm curious about what role professional societies have played - EGU may be trying to innovate, but I'm not sure what AGU has done other than change the price of color figures.
Anyway, there are so many more active earth science bloggers now than when I first went looking... and the quicker the geoblogging community becomes a blockbuster Hollywood spectacle, the quicker I can get on the "longest-running geoblog" gravy train, so I'm really all for it.
Posted by: yami | August 25, 2007 3:59 AM
Haven't met too many geologists with a broad vision. Most are very narrow focus. I'll bet that those geologists who actually get the tenure, and the big professor jobs, keep their mouth shut! :)
Posted by: Harold Asmis | August 25, 2007 10:25 AM
I think it probably is partly a tipping-point issue, like Yami mentioned. And I think it's partly numbers - if you've got a larger population to draw from, you'll have a critical mass for new technology faster. (As far as numbers go - the numbers of geologists publishing in traditional multidisciplinary journals, even high-impact journals like Nature and Science, are very low. And if geologists don't publish in those journals, why should a geologist read them? And if no geologists read them, why publish in them? In fact, I only recently started reading Science myself, and I'm reading it to keep up-to-date on climate science and ocean science, so I can do a better job teaching them in my Earth Systems Science class. The numbers of geologists who submit proposals to some cross-disciplinary programs at NSF are also very low compared to other disciplines. So maybe it isn't technology so much as a desire to communicate in venues that have other geoscientists reading them.)
As far as Ron's cancelled GSA session went - well, maybe I shouldn't talk, because I wrote half an abstract the day before the deadline but gave up on it to do some other pressing work. But maybe a more conversational venue would be better than traditional GSA presentations, at least as a start. It seems like the strength of "Web 2.0" technologies has partly to do with their interactive nature... and there's something weird about standing up in front of a podium and talking at people about how to use an interactive medium. There's a NSF Cutting Edge workshop scheduled for 2008 on "Teaching with New Geoscience Tools: Visualizations, Models, and Online Data" - maybe cutting edge geobloggers (like Ron, for instance) could go and promote blogs and wikis? (Maybe lots of us can go?)
For open-source journals... you know, the Structure/Tectonics division of GSA has been talking about publishing a new structure journal for years, because the Journal of Structural Geology is outrageously expensive and many libraries can't afford it. Maybe somebody (maybe me, actually) should suggest making a new open-source journal. And then GSA could be cutting edge insteady of being behind AGU all the time.
And in defense of geoscientists and technology: I give you the Branner Earth Science Library blog or maybe the IRIS consortium. It seems like the interest is out there.
Posted by: Kim | August 25, 2007 11:06 AM
Okay...go here to see how we are stepping up the presence of geology bloggers
Posted by: Brian | August 25, 2007 4:47 PM
I find it strange that there isn't a lot of geological activity on the Web these days. Back in the Paleolithic era of the internet, when web pages were assembled by hand using bits of colored rocks (aka Mosaic), the US Geological Survey was one of the most interesting places to go.
By the way, the USGS is having one of their open houses in Reston, VA on November 3. They have one every year in one of their three region offices. I missed the one in Menlo Park last year, darn it.
http://www.usgs.gov/homepage/science%5Ffeatures/open%5Fhouse/
Posted by: JeffL | September 24, 2007 2:15 PM
"Traditional geology is also a fairly low-tech affair, requiring little more than a hammer, hand lens and notebook (and the Mark I human eyeball will suffice in a pinch), which might point to a slight technological conservatism."
Good comment but Darwin beat you to it!
"Geology is a capital science to begin with as it requires nothing but a little reading, thinking and hammering."
Charles Darwin, 1835.
Still believe that there is a lot of geological info out there on the web but sometimes hard to pin down. The lack of open source journals is frustrating especially now that many libraries are only carrying electronic journals and you can no longer drop in to the local University library to browse the latest editions.
Posted by: Rod Martin | September 10, 2008 9:55 PM