Title: Message
Prof
Hottinger raises important issues in his note, an important one being that
Palaeontology is not alone in suffering from crises in
funding/staffing/appreciation.These are issues generally faced in the whole of
Earth Science and I do not think palaeontologists should consider themselves a
special case.
Both
academia and industry, as businesses, suffer from short-termism at the moment.
University Earth Science departments (at least in the UK) have to obtain
large ($100,000+) research grants to be seen to be competitive. A few
thousand pounds for field work or museum-based research is seen
as insignificant in terms of university income when at the same time
computing or biochemistry departments are receiving much larger grants for
complex pieces of kit and the staff to run them. Industry rarely (but with
occasional honorable exceptions) funds fundamental geoscience research -
if funding is given at all it is usually for help in solving a short-term
-specific issue. All of this has led to a real crisis in funding basic earth
science research such as outcrop-based biostratigraphy or taxonomy. Often these
only get supported because they are hidden within projects with more grandiose
aims.
Palaeontologists and earth scientists have to be able to answer the
questions "hasn't this been done already" and "do we need to know this". These
are the questions posed by both academic and industrial funding bodies. The
answer to this, even if it only results in obtaining a grant that your
University Chancellor regards as derisory, then it is important to appreciate
how your new findings will be incorporated into broader geoscience. One way in
which we can alter perceptions of our science is by helping others to see the
value, but that necessitates understanding that ourselves. I hope I'm not
being to harsh when I say that I have encountered too many palaeontologists who
think their research should be funded simply because they think it should be.
Mike
Simmons