Letters 2007
Should we worry about "Intelligent Design"?
From Mike Streetly (Rec'd & Pub'd 24.10.07)
Sir, For many years geoscientists in the UK have watched with bemusement the pronouncements of creationists in the USA and wondered why key figures such as Stephen Jay Gould should spend so much effort attacking this position. The recent decision in the Dover (Pennsylvania) case establishing that intelligent design (ID) “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” might have been expected to put the issue of the teaching of creationism/ID in schools to rest. However, three publications this autumn show that the issue is alive and well this side of the pond.
On 17 Sept the Council of Europe issued a report concluding that ‘Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes’.
Then the Government issued guidance to teachers explaining that ID ‘is sometimes erroneously advanced as scientific theory but has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations supporting it and it is not accepted by the international scientific community. Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the National Curriculum for science, but there is scope for schools to discuss creationism as part of Religious Education.
Also in early October Prof Michael Reiss (University of London) launched a book for science teachers who want their students to understand the scientific position on the origins of the universe and life on earth. He argued that a rise in creationism was making it increasingly difficult to teach evolution in British schools. Some science teachers were, as a result, ignoring the topic of evolution completely.
It is likely that some if not all of this activity is in response to a 2006 campaign by the Christian group 'Truth in Science' which sent every secondary school in the UK DVDs promoting ID. Truth is Science clearly has many parallels with the Discovery Institute in the USA which has been one of the main agencies in the recent development of Intelligent Design as a distinct off shoot of creationism. A key feature of both organisations is an emphasis on the scientific background of many of the Board of Directors. While most of the BScs and PhDs are of limited relevance to the evidence base for evolutionary theory, Paul Garner (Scientific Panel of Truth in Science) holds a BSc (Hons) in Environmental Science (Geology and Biology) and is a Fellow of the Geological Society.
With Charles Darwin's bicentennial coming up in 2009 (which is also 150 years after the publication of The Origin of Species) and given the current high profile of this subject would it not be appropriate for the Geological Society to have a position on this matter (as does the Royal Society for instance http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298)?
From Antony Wyatt (Rec’d & Pub’d 8.11.07)
Sir, I support Mike Streetly’s call for a published Geological Society position paper on creationism and intelligent design (ID). I would, however, stress that this is not just a question about evolution that can be left to trouble biologists and palaeontologists. Proponents of ID claim that their ideas are based on the complexity of living organisms, and imply that they have no basis in sacred texts (thus supposedly distancing themselves from creationists). But many, if not virtually all of them, having claimed that the scientific method is flawed, fall back on a belief in the Bible or the Koran. We should consider the implications for the whole of geology.
The biblical creation myth is not very long (in fact there are several contradictory myths, so I will confine my comments to Genesis 1), but it sets out an order of creation that can be tested against the evidence. This includes not only the order of appearance of different life forms, which can be compared to the fossil record (which is simply a record of what has been found in rocks and is independent of, though best explained by evolution), but also the order in which a number of physical events occurred.
The Bible has the Earth, and flowering plants, created before the sun, moon, and stars. I hope that all fellows of the Society would agree that this goes against modern scientific thinking. Not only is there the problem that the origin of the elements requires fusion reactions in stars, so the biblical view implies an Earth (and flowering plants) made up only of hydrogen and helium (all mineralogists, petrographers and botanists take note), but there is also the question of how flowering plants could survive without the sun.
Going from an Earth alone in space, to an Earth/moon pair (and the rest of the planets) orbiting the sun is also a problem. There should be no tidal or Milankovitch cyclicity signals prior to the first flowering plants. And, of course, there is the matter of scientifically validated dates for rocks from the moon, and the calculated distances to other galaxies, both of which show that the moon and many galaxies were in existence long before the first flowering plants appeared.
None of the scientific evidence fits with the biblical story. Creationists and ID supporters are not just arguing that evolution is false. They are also implying that much of the rest of science is also untrue. Any Geological Society position paper should make it clear that it is not just evolution that we support: it is the scientific method, and, in particular, the application of the scientific method to the study of the Earth.
From Martin Lack (Rec’d 12 Pub’d 13.11.07)
Sir, With reference to Mike Streetly’s call for the Society to have a published position paper on Intelligent Design (24 October, see above), I should wish to stress that, while science is clearly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, it is not incompatible with faith in God. Furthermore, whereas there are numerous “dubious” organisations out there, there are also some that are entirely “serious”, such as Christians in Science (of which I am not a member, incidentally).
Hold the flyer, save the world - reply
From Dave Greenwood (Rec'd 4.01.08; Pub'd 8.01.08)
Sir, David Nowell's letter (see below), coupled with Alison Tucker's report (Geoscientist, November 2007 - also below) has led me to think of other ways in which the Society could reduce its carbon footprint. In particular, having now made extensive use of the Lyell Collection to download papers to my PC, it occurred to me that I do not really need to receive any further paper copies of GSL periodicals. Surely the time has come to offer Fellows the option of an "electronic only" membership category to all serial publications for a reasonable annual contribution. That would save countless trees, preserve china clay reserves, lower energy consumption, ease the load for the poor postman, and last, but not least, give some respite to my creaking bookshelves. After all, when I'm gone, my treasured back issues will probably all end up in a skip!
Neal Marriott, Director of Publishing, replies:
Dear David, Thank you for your timely correspondence regarding the options for electronic-only access to Fellow’s journals. The Society has been actively considering precisely this service for some time now and should be in a position to offer Fellow’s the option to decline print versions in the near future. The complications have had nothing to do with the technicalities of online publishing, nor the administration of a dual (ie print + electronic, or electronic-only) system; rather, it has been the implications of European VAT regulations which mean that print-inclusive subscriptions are mostly VAT-exempt, whereas electronic only subscriptions attract the full 17.5% VAT.
One word of warning, however! The additional VAT charges will more or less balance the savings in print and distribution – so there are unlikely to be any cost savings to pass on to Fellows.
Laminate this!
From Geoscientist January 08, p12.
Readers of the November issue may have noticed the correspondence suggesting that the Society’s Publishing House review its practices for the printing of flyers promoting new book titles, in order to reduce environmental impact.
The Publishing House has now completed a review of the material used for its book covers (and the flyers which are produced as part of the same continuous print run) and is pleased to announce that it will be changing to a new laminate from early in 2008.
In recent years our book covers have been finished using a high-quality laminate. This not only creates a bright and attractive finish, but produces a highly durable surface to ensure that our books are resistant to long term wear and tear. The downside has been that the laminate has been oil-based and this renders the flyers non-recyclable.
Starting with the earliest titles in the 2008 list the Publishing House will be switching to CelloGreen film, a printing product based on cellulose and derived from wood pulp produced from forests managed for sustainability. The finished covers (and promotional flyers) should be indistinguishable from those produced in the past – but are now recyclable, biodegradable and compostable. Neal Marriott
Hold the flyer, save the world
From David Nowell (Rec'd & Pub'd 26.9.07)
Sir, Whatever we like to think, individually there is very little we can do to lessen our environmental impact without collective action, governmental intervention and international agreements. However, in its bicentennial year the Geological Society can set a small example by making its endless stream of flyers for special publications recyclable. These numerous flyers are printed on the back of very durable plasticized book covers, which unlike colour printed paper cannot be disposed of easily.
Given that flyers require a separate print run, there is no need to use the same energy-intensive materials as for these excellent covers. Even if paper flyers will appear slightly dull in comparison, this will significantly reduce their environmental impact and should reduce the cost of printing this ephemeral advising material.
Neal Marriott, Director of Publishing replies: The Publishing House produces its covers using high quality laminated papers not just to create an attractive finish, but to produce a durable surface to ensure that our books are highly resistant to long-term wear and tear.
The advertising flyers that Fellows and others receive are, in fact, produced as part of an extended print run of the covers themselves, and not by some separate process (this is by far the most cost effective way of doing it). The cover materials are not plasticised, but are manufactured using an oil-based laminate - though this does, unfortunately, render the flyers non-recyclable. There are recyclable alternatives available and the Publishing House is actively considering whether these more environmentally friendly options are suitable for book covers.
Chicxulub nemesis
From Tom Dunkley Jones (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.07
Sir, Perhaps I'm one of many who were slightly surprised by the tone of your recent article, "Impact Factor", in this month's Geoscientist. I accept that scientists should be civil in their dealings with one another and allow a fair discussion of all the evidence. It is a great shame then, that you failed to provide any space for the "majority" view, which represents years of hard and painstaking work into the events across the K-P boundary. Inviting an expert reply on these matters may have been of more benefit to both your readership and the scientific standing of the Geoscientist.
I can understand your concerns about the way we do science, perhaps we sometimes delude ourselves beneath the veil of impartial and objective judgement, but it does not help when you dismiss years of work and cogent arguments without a second thought. The "grey" literature is highly important in society today, perhaps the place where science is communicated to a wider public, which, I believe, makes it all the more important for writers to accurately represent the current scientific debates to our best ability.
First, by a short Necker
From Norman Butcher (Rec'd & Pub'd 9.7.07)
Sir, it is good that Brighid O'Dochartaigh draws attention (17.8 August 2007 p8) to the BGS poster reproduction at half scale of John McCulloch's geological map of Scotland. However, MacCulloch's is not the first geological map of the country, as the headline states. That distinction belongs to the map presented by Louis Albert Necker of Geneva to the infant Society on 4 November 1808.
Necker's hand-coloured manuscript map was apparently accompanied by an explanatory memoir, which seems not to have survived. The map was not published until 1939 by the Edinburgh Geological Society and w2as the subject of a paper by Victor Eyles in the Society's Transactions in 1948, as noted by Gordon Herries-Davies in his recent history. Necker's remarkable map was reprinted by Bartholomew & Son in 1985, in Edinburgh.
"Janet Watson Lecture Theatre"
Editor's note: We reproduce here some of the letters received in reaction to the Council suggestion to name the Lecture Theatre for the Society's first woman President, Janet Watson. The idea was publicisesd in the July and August editions of Geoscientist. So far there have been three letters against and 33 in favour. Ted Nield
From Rex Davis (Rec'd 20.10; Pub'd 22.10. 2007)
Sir, During my five years as Head of the Geology Department at Imperial College in the 1970s, I successfully proposed three hard-to-get promotions to Professorships. These were: John Knill (Engineering Geology), Douglas Shearman (Sedimentology) and Janet Watson. All three distinguished themselves, among many others, at a time of great forward movement in geology generally, and also in the welfare of the Society.
The special and unique accomplishment of Janet Watson, however, was to earn the accolade of becoming our first woman President. I am delighted now to follow up my high regard for Janet over three decades ago by warmly applauding the Council proposal to mark this milestone in the history of the Society by naming our Lecture Theatre in her memory.
From Richard Symonds (Rec'd 11.10; Pub'd 15.10.2007)
Sir, Does the Geological Society Lecture Theatre need another name at all? It already has a long name. To change it to the Geological Society (of London) Janet Watson Lecture Theatre, for this is what it would have to be known as to everyone other than the officers, staff and regulars of the Society, seems too much.
The definite article holds the clue; there is just the one lecture theatre. To name it after Watson (or anyone else) implies there is another lecture theatre from which it needs to be distinguished. If the Society had more than one lecture theatre (as it does meeting rooms or libraries) then some form of additional identification would be needed; but it doesn't.
Unlike Lyell, Buckland, Holmes and the alternatives suggested (Smith and Darwin), Watson's reputation does not seem to be growing as time passes. As the other letters show, it seems to be limited to members of a generation with whom she had personal contact.
I don't doubt their sentiments are sincere. In this case sentiment is not enough. Fred Dunning wrote a polite and reasonable letter against the Council proposal suggesting that William Smith might be honoured instead, in view of the injustice done to him - to which the Editor responded by suggesting that the Society might have regard instead to the need to right "what many believe has been the Society's historical collective insult to the whole of womanhood". I doubt even the name of Janet Watson could right that wrong.
Please Council, pull back from adding to the sum of human misery by the generation of redundant monikers; but if you insist I would vote for Darwin.
From Darren Page (Rec'd 10.10; Pub'd 15.10.2007)
Sir, While I do not doubt Janet Watson’s valuable contribution to certain aspects of geology there are just so many individuals who have equally made their contribution to geology and the Society over the past 200 years who will never be fully appreciated and it does a huge disservice to these people to single out one person in this way.
I acknowledge that many have been acclaimed but by and large this has been many years after their death or a long time ago. For a learned society one’s legacy is the work they have done and their contribution to the betterment of knowledge. For it is only on this that they can be judged and remembered.
May I suggest that if anything is named after an individual that it is done so well after their death and also the death of their peers and acquaintances when a balanced and unemotional view of their contribution to science and society can be made? I am not in favour of this proposal and would strongly urge others to think again. I do not see that being a nice person, a woman or a great tutor are sufficient reasons for such an accolade.
From Michael D Max (Rec'd & Pub'd 7.10.2007)
Sir, I would like to express my strong support for naming the lecture Theatre after Janet Watson. I think it is very appropriate in general while I feel it is even more appropriate in particular. My first visit to the Geol Soc was in the company of Janet, who brought myself and some other hangers-on along with a group of Imperial College geologists to an evening meeting. I believe that she was also one of my proposers for fellowship. That began an extremely pleasant and useful period for me during what could now described as the golden age of structural and metamorphic geological researches in the 20th Century.
From Julia Hubbard (Rec'd & Pub'd 21.9.2007)
I have no views on this gallant gesture to the late Prof Janet Watson FRS: but I am reminded of the fact that until the revamping of the rooms at Somerset House for the Courtauld, the rooms still bore the titles of the Geological Society Executives' Positions over their portals. So I have little confidence of this type of gallantry lasting very long. It is however a nice thought. Janet is certainly worthy of the honour on all counts. As Jake would say she doesn't need to adhere to fefeminist causes she is one by example.
From Tim Whitten (Rec'd 17.09.07; Pub'd 21.09.2007)
Council’s recent decision in favour of naming the Society’s Lecture Theatre for Professor Janet Watson was, in my view, an excellent and appropriate decision because of Janet’s stature as a scientist and communicator; those skills were often displayed at Burlington House. I hope a wide cross-section of the fellowship agrees.
Because Janet’s untimely death occurred some 22 years ago, many fellows will not have known her personally. I was privileged, however, to have benefited from her wonderfully clear and crisp presentations in the Society’s lecture theatre during the 1950s, which was a particularly stimulating decade for British structural geology. Would that all papers were presented with such clarity! Although four years Janet Watson’s junior, I was on the academic staff of one of the other University of London geology departments from hers during the 1950s and followed keenly the development of her stimulating research and communication skills, which were displayed so frequently and regularly at the Society. It seems so appropriate to name the Lecture Theatre after a fellow who was such an excellent geologist and lecturer, who published extensively in the Society’s Journal, and who went on to be one of its distinguished presidents. I appreciate the opportunity to support the Council’s decision.
From John Richardson (Rec'd 13.09.07, Pub'd 21.09.2007)
In the mid-1950s, my undergraduate days, the work of Sutton and Watson in the Highlands was synonymous with excellence. Later when I lectured at King’s College and came to know them both I appreciated why. At Geol. Soc. Meetings and on visits to Imperial College I often met Janet and was even more impressed. Marjorie Muir, one of Janet’s colleagues, always spoke very highly of her and I am sure that Marjorie would want me to add her support to mine. Janet Watson was one of those very rare individuals who combined scientific excellence and success, and highly developed communication skills, with a helpful, pleasant, patient nature. She was an excellent lecturer and a brilliant teacher. The proposal to name the Burlington House Lecture Theatre for Janet Watson has my wholehearted support.
From Paul Compton (Rec'd & Pub'd 7.9.2007)
Sir, I met Janet Watson when she was my PhD external examiner in 1978. She impressed me not only as an excellent and skilled geologist, but as a warm human being, dedicated to her chosen role in geology education and research. While I cannot class her among the “greats” of geology (everyone has their own personal list), naming the lecture theatre after her is a fitting memorial, and makes a clear statement that that the Geological Society is not a stuffy, misogynistic organization.
From Barbara Dickinson (Rec'd 5; Pub'd 6 September 2007)
Sir, Yes! A thousand times Yes!
From Howard Johnson (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.2007)
Sir, I would like to give your proposal to re-name the GSL lecture theatre after Janet Watson my complete support. This has little to do with my present association with IC, but everything to do with the influence that Janet Watson had on me personally as well as so many other geologists of my generation. As an A-level student in the late 60's, the two Read and Watson books were immensely important and contributed to many taking up the subject in the first place, either at school or as a new subject at university. I don't think we can overestimate her enduring influence on both academic geology and its professional applications. Consequently, I am fully behind the Council's proposal for the Janet Watson Lecture Theatre.
From Stuard Baldwin (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.2007)
Sir, Many years ago I had the pleasure of sitting on a committee with Janet Watson. Both intellectually and as a person I found her exceptionally stimulating and kind and fully support the idea of naming the Lecture Theatre in her honour.
From Annette Cutler (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.07)
As the first female to become a Chartered Geologist, I note the proposal to name the lecture theatre for Professor Janet Watson, to which I am compelled to write and offer my support. Although I never had the honour to meet her, Professor Watson was an inspiration not only to myself as a budding female geologist but also to my male contemporaries. Professors Sutton and Watson texts were quoted on a regular basis throughout my university years, but it was she, who caught the imagination of those young undergraduates such that it was her name that was frequently mentioned in conversation. As a young professional geologist, I similarly frequently heard her name mentioned throughout Geological Society meetings and events. Professor Watson has clearly had a lasting influence on a great many of us and made a major contribution to geological knowledge in the last century. Council’s proposal is a fitting tribute to a highly distinguished and influential geologist and, in my opinion, a great woman of our time.
From John F Dewey (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.07)
Sir, The GSL should have no hesitation in naming its lecture theatre "The Janet Watson Lecture Theatre". Janet was a wonderful friend and mentor to many IC students, including me. She was not only one of the towering, original, and clever figures of geology but was an extraordinarily good teacher. She was not only admired but loved deeply by all who knew her.
From Jane MacKelvie Jutsum (Rec'd & Pub'd 3.9.07)
Sir, I would like to see the room named after Janet Watson as she managed to combine being a brilliant academic with being a kind and inspirational teacher and a delightful person. The fact that she was the first female president of Geol Soc is also relevant. Perhaps it is because she always came after the “and” (Read and Watson; Sutton and Watson), that her light never really shone from under the bushel in the way it should have done. This is an opportunity to put this right and give her the credit that she is due.
Although I no longer work in geology (I am a barrister with the CPS), I enjoyed my studies at Swansea and Imperial in the 1970s and 1980s with two remarkable groups of academics. I still like to try to understand the advances documented in Geol Soc publications, with a varying degree of success!
From Andrew Cheatle (Rec'd & Pub'd 24.7.8)
Sir, The Council's proposal to name the Society's Lecture Theatre after Professor Janet Watson is most fitting. As an undergraduate at the Royal School of Mines, Imperial College (1982-85) I was fortunate to have been taught - regrettably all too briefly - by Prof. Watson. Her lectures were always of immense quality and given with passion for the subject. Professor Watson was an inspirational lecturer who imbued a strong spirit of scientific inquiry into the students she taught.
Over the years, I have come to realise what a privilege it was to have her as a lecturer and to this day I can still recall (paraphrased here) her introduction to the Phanerozoic/Palaeozoic in first year General Geology: "....and moving onto the recent past; and by that I mean the Cambrian."
I support the proposal.
From Dr Tony M Spencer (Rec'd & Publ'd 23.8.07)
Sir, This is a very good idea. I remember Janet at many GSL meetings in the period 1968 - 1979. She talked to everyone about geology and was full of interest in our subject.
From Prof. John Murray (Rec'd & Publ'd 15.8.2007)
Sir, I fully support the proposal to name the lecture theatre in honour of Janet Watson because she was an outstanding geologist and an excellent teacher.
From Eva Paproth (Rec'd 12.8: Publ'd 15.8.2007)
Sir, May I be permitted to express my real delight that Council plans to name the Society's Meeting Room for Prof. Janet Watson. I am very much in favour of that proposition. I had the honour to know her from working in IGCP Project 861, many years ago, and I shall never forget her most efficient and most amiable great personality.
From Prof. Fred Dunning (Rec'd & Pub'd 13.8.07)
Sir, I had a high opinion of Janet Watson as a person and as an outstanding Highland geologist. However, notwithstanding her eminence in British geology, she does not in my opinion (and I am sure not in her own opinion) rate as "one of the greatest geologists of the 20th Century" to quote the recent Geoscientist article. Her work is known to comparatively few Earth scientists on the world scene.
However there is one great figure in British geology and geological science generally who does merit your description and that is William Smith. Although treated shabbily by the Society during much of his lifetime, the Society made up for this in later years and after his death, when the stupendous magnitude of his contribution as the founding father of stratigraphical geology and the first geological mapper of his native country came to be understood and appreciated. Short perhaps of naming the Meeting Room after Charles Darwin (for which a case could be made), nothing could be more apt than the "William Smith Room". No-one would demur at this and the world at large would applaud it. It would stand alongside William Smith’s famous map in Burlington House.
Would the Janet Watson proposal have been made if she had been a male geologist with the same body of work and reputation? I think not.
From Dr Malcolm Jenyon (Rec’d and Pub’d 11.8.2007)
As a comment on the "Society Business" section in the August Geoscientist I most strongly support the choice of naming the Lecture Theatre in honour of Professor Janet Watson. From early familiarity with her work in my undergraduate days, to the great privilege I had in the early 1980s of holding a fascinating conversation with her as a fellow guest at a dinner in London, I have esteemed this gentle, intellectually formidable lady. Her name certainly deserves to be included in any list of the great geologists.
From Helen Nattrass (Rec's & Pub'd 9.8.07)
Sir, I am in favour of the theatre being named after Janet Watson. I did Geology BSc in the mid 70s at the RSM. I had not studied geology at school but I thought it sounded interesting and might lead to exciting employment. Well, I arrived knowing virtually nothing about rocks or the Earth.After three weeks there was a compulsory field trip to Devon. I can remember Janet Watson and John Knill, among others, on that first excursion.
I have a vivid recollection of standing on the sea-shore one October morning when Janet was talking about the Devonian limestone. She had a small group around her and she was explaining something of what could be seen in the specimen. I, who knew absolutely nothing, asked "So how do you know it's limestone?" There were a few gasps and titters. Janet stopped and explained very kindly and lucidly how one identified limestone in the field. She did not make fun of me, took my question seriously and gave the answer - such an elementary point for an FRS.
I ended up following John Knill's footsteps in my degree and professional life. But I have always remembered that early moment with Janet Watson. I was amazed that such a famous and senior member of staff could be bothered to accompany 1st year 'know-nothing' students on a low-level elementary piece of course-work.
From Prof. Rick Sibson (Rec'd & Pub'd) 9.8.07)
Sir, I had the immense privilege of being supervised by Janet Watson during my PhD research on the Outer Hebrides Thrust in the early 1970s. She was a wonderful and warm human being whose scientific acumen and perceptive insights were matched only by her thoughtfulness - and the care she took in overseeing the hesitant footsteps of young scientists while at the same time allowing them to pursue their own research paths.
I fully and heartily endorse the proposal to name the Burlington House Lecture Theatre after her - a very fitting tribute.
From Prof. Gordon Craig (Rec'd & Pub'd 7.8 2007)
Sir, Excellent idea to name the theatre after Janet. If only all geologists could talk and write as clearly and concisely as she did. I first met her in 1953 when we were both speaking at the Geol.Soc. She was presenting a metamorphic paper on behalf of Derek Flinn: I was talking about Carboniferous paleoecology. In those days the theatre had opposing rows of seats, House of Commons style. Gertie Elles was there with her ear trumpet!
Afterwards Janet and I were invited to eat at the Dining Club - which turned out to be in a basement room down some dingy stairs at a nearby pub. At the end of the meal we were asked to leave because the members had private business to attend to! And so, somewhat perplexed and overawed by the occasion we found ourselves back on the dark streets of London...
From Lady Diane Knill (Rec’d 3.8, Pub’d 5.8.07)
Sir, I strongly support the proposal that the Lecture Theatre should be named for Janet Watson. I was fortunate enough to be a Ph.D. student at Imperial College when both John Sutton and Janet Watson were members of the staff. Indeed John Sutton was my supervisor.
Prior to coming to Imperial (I was a geology undergraduate at Queen's Belfast - most regrettably a department that no longer exists) and was inspired by the work which Janet and John were publishing at that time. Indeed they, along with H.H. Read, were the magnets which drew me to Imperial for my research.
Although Janet was in many ways a very unassuming person there was no doubting her formidable intellect and geology owes much to her research into metamorphic geology and Pre-Cambrian stratigraphy. Janet was always approachable and I am sure she has been an inspiration to many female geologists. I have always been proud that I knew her both as a geologist and a friend.
From Joe McCall (Rec'd 15.07, Pub'd 1.08)
Sir, As her PhD student contemporary and one who spent a sabbatical year in 1967 sharing an office with Janet Watson, I think the idea about naming the lecture theatre after her is splendid. She was a most courageous lady with a brilliant brain. However, as Gordon Herries Davies emphasises in his excellent book, the Society has a long history of male chauvinism. I found it still rife at the University of Western Australia in the 1960s, where the late Professor Prider would not give field instruction to female students and passed them to me (he disliked me, and imagined he was doing me a disfavour, which was far from the case!). One year I taught five very bright female students, and one of them has remained a friend for life.I suggest that a plaque be put on the wall stating the dedication to Janet, stating that it also reflects the Society's appreciation of Mary Anning, a strange omission by Herries Davies (for whom the Society contributed a relief fund and a memorial window to Lyme Regis church) and all those female geologists who have made important contributions to geology through the first 200 years of the Society's history. In this way, a longstanding wrong by our predecessors will be acknowledged and, I trust, laid to rest. I have a soft spot for Rachel Workman (Lady MacRobert) who lost three sons in WW2, but splendidly donated a Lancaster bomber in their memory named "MacRobert’s reply". She also donated funds for text books for ex-service students to H H Read, and I was one grateful recipient.
Desk Job (continued)
From Dr Deryck Laming (Rec’d & Pub’d 26 July 2007)
Sir, I wish to express my incredulity at the design of Society's new reception desk. Rather like the man who every day lunched in the Eiffel Tower because that was the only place from which he could not see it, the receptionist is the only one not condemned to view the pile from the front.
But I have another sad comment: the bleakness of the entrance hall. Where are the jolly book displays of yesteryear, the comfortable chairs where the London-weary traveller could sit for a few minutes (there was even a geological jewellery display cabinet, where once I was persuaded to make a purchase)? From the stark bareness of this new hallway we now see the pile of tombstones whose tonnes of uncouth and clashing design cannot boast even a milligram of sensitivity.
It stands as an object lesson: never let a geologist design a public building, and never let an architect design a geological feature, especially one in the heart of the profession's headquarters.
(Further correspondence in this series can be found below - Editor)
Not ON...
From Anna Grayson (Rec'd 3 July Pub'd 17 July 2007)
Sir, Readers should be aware (ONward and upward, Geoscientist 17,6 pp24-25) that the BBC did in fact commission a number of programmes and associated publications during the 80s and 90s with strong and robust geological themes including - Geology; Rock Solid; Postcards from the Past, Essential Guide to Rocks, Mars Weekend, The Ology Hour, Earthworks.Neither Martine Benoit nor John Simmons had any involvement with these programmes. To lump these broadcasts with "weather porn" is false and to imply that their content might also have been limited to death, disaster and destruction inaccurate.
Global flatulence
From Michael F Ridd* Rec’d 11 July; Pub’d 13 July 2007
Sir, The Global Warming bandwagon gathers pace and it is hardly possible to open a newspaper or turn on the TV news without another story warning us that man’s actions are causing the ice-caps to melt or hurricanes to increase in intensity. The justification usually given that the warming is anthropogenic and not natural is that there is a consensus among climate scientists who agree that it is so. And now Colin Summerhayes tells us the same thing in the July issue of Geoscientist – “Global Warming: A Basic Primer”.
What has happened to normal and proper scientific scepticism? Geologists don’t wish to know what the consensus view is; we want to hear the evidence so that we can form our own opinions. Why, for example, was there a period of global cooling lasting several decades in the middle of the 20th Century when atmospheric CO2 emissions continued to rise? And what was the source of the high CO2 concentrations that correlate with warm periods in the geological past? Is Colin able to prove me wrong if I opine that it may be the warming which causes the increase in CO2 rather than the reverse?
Of course, we should seek to conserve our finite resources of fossil fuels and protect the planet from pollution. But when the broadcast media warn us (as they have this week) that the flatulence of farm animals is contributing to global warming we can be forgiven for thinking that maybe hysteria is taking over.
* michaelfridd@aol.com
Desk Job (continued)
From Robert Sandford, Julian Harrap (Architects) (Rec'd & Pub'd 23.5.07 )
Sir, Not being a geologist and at the risk of generating further correspondence, I thought that, as architect for the new Reception Desk at the Geological Society, I should attempt to explain the ‘stratigraphical confusions’ (Geoscientist vol. 17.5 May 2007).
The design concept for the desk was to use stones native to the British Isles, arranged in the three main rock groups, that is, igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic, with the lower levels at the base of the desk comprising granites, rising through limestones and sandstones to the genetically subsequent metamorphic marbles and slates at the counter top. The seventeen stone courses making up the desk were not, therefore, based solely on ‘aesthetic criteria’ but were arranged in geological age as identified in the National Stone Directory 2004–5.
Within each rock group the individual courses are layered chronologically so that, for example, the limestones and sandstones rise from the Devonian Caithness Flagstone (course 14) up to the Hurdcott green sandstone of the Cretaceous at course 3.
While it would have been geologically correct to complete the desk at counter top level with the youngest stones, in practical terms this would have been inappropriate as we needed to provide a durable and easily maintainable counter top.
According to my geological source books, as metamorphic rocks are formed from pre-existing rocks, I thought it justifiable to complete the desk at the upper level with Burlington Slate and Connemara marble (courses 1 and 2, respectively).
I appreciate that, from a purely geological viewpoint, it is regrettable that some of the layers are partially obscured, by overlying courses. Here, I must accept that architectural considerations took precedence.
As well as layering and grouping the stones chronologically, the design concept for the desk was also to reflect and exaggerate the stratification of rock formations in, for example, cliff faces and quarries - thereby to provide a contemporary piece of furniture that can be readily identified with the Geological Society.
As Eric Robinson’s article and numerous emails appear to suggest, the desk has already provided both a learning tool and a talking point for members and visitors alike!
History, man
From P Holroyd (Rec'd and Pub'd 16 May 2007)
Sir, Rarely have I come across a book that is so readable, enjoyable and informative as "Whatever is Under the Earth" - the 200-year history of The Geological Society, written by Gordon Herries Davies. Author and publisher are to be congratulated on producing an incredibly detailed record of the Society's history in such a high quality book.
Desk Job
From Prof. Dick Selley (Rec’d & Pub’d 8 May 2007)
Sir, Once upon a time, Bob the Builder bought a load of blank tombstones (Geoscientist 17.5 May 2007 p.10) at a knock down price when the monumental masons “Gravestones ‘R' Us'” went into receivership. He flogged them to the contractors refurbishing the Society's apartments. Bob delivered the tombstones when all the staff were out to lunch. As his white van was parked in Piccadilly he hurriedly stacked the gravestones in a pile with no thought for structure or stratigraphy. When the staff returned from lunch they thought that the pile was a work of art by Tracy Hirst, Damien Emin, or some such, admired them and continued about their duties.
The pile will no doubt stay there until the end of the Holocene, while Murchison rotates in his grave like a drill-bit shouting 'I just don't believe it'.
From Prof Bernard E Leake (Rec'd and Pub'd 10 May 07)
Sir, Connemara Marble is a metamorphosed impure dolomite (Geoscientist 17.5 May 2007 p.11). The characteristic green colour derives from serpentinised olivine (~98% Forsterite, Mg2SiO4), tremolite Ca2Mg5Si8O22(OH)2 and some diopside CaMgSi2O6, all of which minerals require Mg from dolomite and Si from clay or quartz impurities and the last two also need Ca.The excess Ca makes the calcite part of the marble. The green colour comes from the presence of minute traces of Fe. As you already have several limestones in the desk, it actually is an improvement to have one dolomite!
From Dr Chris Thomas (Rec'd & Pub'd 29 March 2007)
Sir, It was interesting to read Professor Nick Petford’s call for geochemists to embrace the full range of statistical techniques available to analyse the now vast amount of geochemical data that exist worldwide (Geoscientist 17, 3, p3). How right he is!
In his brief critique, the Harker diagram (and its variants) is highlighted as still being the chief means by which geochemists seek out trends amongst compositional variables, with the aim of elucidating the chemical and physical processes that underlie these variations. He mentions that the main weakness of such diagrams is their limited scope in terms of multivariate analysis.
From a statistical point of view, there is a further, more serious issue. Multivariate compositional data are, by their very nature, closed – they sum to a constant. This means that the trends observed in any diagram of such ‘raw’ compositional data (wt %, ppm…) are subject to spurious correlations. These reflect complex interrelationships between variables that, at least in part, may have no origin in the processes by which the rocks formed. In strictly statistical terms, these relationships are indeterminate and thus un-interpretable when standard statistical techniques are applied to ‘raw’ compositional data. Yet this problem is still largely ignored amongst geoscientists, despite the warnings and efforts of a number of petrologists and statisticians in recent years, beginning with Felix Chayes in the 1960s (Chayes 1960, 1962, 1971).
As John Aitchison has elucidated since the 1980s, the key is to examine ratios of compositional variables. Happily, this is something geologists and geochemists are very comfortable with, but perhaps without being aware of the way in which the ratios, especially in more tractable log form, free the data from the confines of closure and open up the data to standard multivariate analysis, (subject, of course, to all the usual caveats).
The Geological Society has recently published Special Publication 264: Compositional Data Analysis in the Geosciences (Buccianti et al. 2006). This volume reflects some of the work that has taken place most recently since the publication of John Aitchison’s monograph “The Statistical Analysis of Compostional Data” in 1986 (Aitchison 1986). The volume includes a number of applied papers that point towards a new era of sensible statistical analysis of compositions and includes papers on using a well-known spreadsheet package and the open source R software for compositional data analysis.
The numerical properties of compositional data are now well-rehearsed; teachers and students should be aware of the issues. The methods with which to treat such data in a robust and statistically sound manner are available. It is time for we geologists and geochemists to run with the new methods, to think in more depth about the nature of the wealth of data we have at our finger tips, and how we analyse them. Indeed, it is time for more creative thinking – and for more robust and statistically valid modelling.
*British Geological Survey, Edinburgh
The views expressed in this letter are personal and are not a corporate statement of the British Geological Survey. Published with the permission of the Executive Director, British Geological Survey (NERC).
References
* Aitchison, J. 1986. The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data. Chapman and Hall, London and New York.
* Buccianti, A., Mateu-Figueras, G. & Pawlowsky-Glahn, V. 2006. Compositional Data Analysis in the Geosciences: From Theory to Practice. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 264.
* Chayes, F. 1960. On correlation between variables of constant sum. Journal of Geophysical Research 65, 4185-4193.
* Chayes, F. 1962. Numerical correlation and petrographic variation. Journal of Geology 70, 440-452.
* Chayes, F. 1971. Ratio Correlation. University of Chicago Press, Illinois.
Climate change - a sceptic writes
from Peter Easton* (Rec'd and Pub'd 26 Feb)
Sir, I am disappointed that Geoscientist does not do more to defend the integrity of science in the climate change debate. Whether believer or skeptic, any scientist should feel discomfort with how the hysteria of politicians and journalists seems to lead the public perception of scientific ‘truth’. Many argue it is too risky to admit uncertainty, but this is a political rather than scientific conclusion. I myself remain unconvinced that manmade climate change is either significant or a significant threat – a view derived from the science rather than any lack of concern for the environment, whose protection I strongly believe in. The case is not made for industrialising our best country side with wind farms, or of swinging back to nuclear power before deciding we are satisfied with its safety.
I meet many nationalities through my work, but find that universal conviction exists only in the UK, with more (healthy) scepticism elsewhere. I do not expect to influence the views of committed believers with my own, but I implore all scientists to make the effort to judge the science for themselves, rather than be led by the headlines, or even the opinions of other scientists. A good source is the IPCC scientific reports (not the politicised Summary for Policymakers), as well as many other good studies.
As a leading scientific community, we have a duty to ensure that the freedom of legitimate scientific reason and debate is maintained, and to avoid being directed by political correctness. Earth scientists have a valuable role in understanding climate change, being more able than most to appreciate the significance of natural climate change against which manmade change must be compared. In fact, I would like to see a survey of Geoscientist readers’ views on climate change .
*Brussels, Belgium
Misnomers
from David James* (Recd'd and Pub'd 14.2)
Sir, Ted Nield prefaces his informative and evocative article on Estonian kukersite (Geoscientist, February 07, p2; feature p22 et seq.) by gleefully pointing out that this 'oil shale' is neither a shale nor contains oil; bringing to mind student days in the Welsh borders when Stuart McKerrow was wont to remind us that the 'Psammosteus Limestone' was neither a limestone nor did it contain Psammosteus.
A further misnomer in the article is the reference to the mammoth NKMZ** excavator as a 'dragline'. The photographs show that not only is the bucket jib-mounted (rather than solely cable-attached) but that it scoops outwards rather than dragging inwards .
This relict behemoth of Soviet superiority is thus a power shovel. In my student days there was Cold War rivalry for building the biggest dragline excavator; the Brits being first to a 100 yard boom only to be eclipsed two years later by the Soviets with a 100 metre boom and bigger bucket. A year later we used an even bigger bucket but on a slightly shorter boom so one could argue a draw. Sadly the graceful giant walking draglines built in the UK by Ransomes & Rapier for the Northamptonshire ironstone field are now scrapped but Fellows missing their Tonka toys might like to know that an American-built relict of the genre, 'Oddball', is still visible at St Aidans, near Leeds (www.iarecordings.org/dragline).
*Finedon, Northamptonshire
** Notes and Clarifications
Editor writes: I am grateful to Peter Grimshaw FGS who points out that the power shovel illustrated in the February issue was made by Novo-Kramatorsky Mashinostroitelny Zavod, and that the letters on its side are therefore NMKZ, not NKME (the Cyrillic capital "Z" being of course written like a backwards "E" So much for my Russian O-Level.).
NKMZ is a heavy engineering company based in Kramatorsk, in the Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine. In the late 40s of the 20th Century, NKMZ started production of the Type SE-3 power shovels and Type ESH-1 walking drag-lines which supplied the immense development of opencast mining at that time, as well as large hydroelectric power schemes involving large earth-moving operations.
In the early 50s, concurrently with implementation of the draglines in service, heavy-duty stripping shovels with the buckets of 15 m3 and 35 m3 in capacity were manufactured in the USSR. Later on, these power shovels were exported to Germany, Russia, India, China, Iran, Cuba, etc. NKMZ became known all over the world and its trade mark received general acceptance. In half a century, over 2000 power shovels were produced.
In the late 50s, when the opencast mining technologies become the primary ones throughout the world, NKMZ was the pioneer in manufacture of the wheel-type excavating machines, spreaders, trunk belt conveyors, mobile crushing plants, etc. in the USSR. In the early 60s, NKMZ started supplying equipment for ore mining plants and opencast coalfields.
For more information of this sort go to http://www.nkmz.com/English/index.html
Ted Nield
A weighty matter
From John Heathcote (Rec'd 10.1; Pub'd 11.1)
Sir, Our magazine has had a re-vamp and it's printed on different paper. The paper is made from 50% post-consumer waste which is a good thing. The previous layout did not state the source of the paper pulp. But the new magazine is nearly 50% heavier than the old one, so the energy cost of moving them around the UK and the world is proportionately higher, which is a bad thing.
I treat Geoscientist as a magazine, not a journal. It survives only a couple of months before heding off for recycling. Therefore I don't think we need to use high quality paper suitable for long storage, only the cheapest, lightest and most recycled stuff that will take a reasonable quality of print.
Editor replies:
I am not sure what other magazines Dr Heathcote reads to give him the impression that they are printed on lower quality paper than academic journals, but I don't believe the correlation applies past the Exchange & Mart. However I can assure him on a few points. The previous paper contained no recycled material. It was difficult to use because of static build-up as it passed the press, and its grey colour and show-through meant that readability was compromised.
The new paper is not only heavier but whiter. This, combined with the new font has made the magazine more readable for those Fellows with failing eyesight (about everyone over 40). And John will, I hope, be happy to hear that subsequent issues of the year will be printed on slightly lighter 100gsm stock, not the 115gsm stock we used for the January issue. It may also interest readers to know that this improvement in quality has come at no extra cost to the Fellows, either from printing or posta