| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Roy and others, This is an interesting way to ponder on the future of paleontology, but I believe it misses the mark on considering some very important needs. The first reaction in reading the document posted below is that the group is concerned primarily in talking about generalities: generalities of image, generalities of status, generalities of research goals and generalities of application to other aspects of science and society. We are guided to think of 'big picture' and theory types of inquiry, to the exclusion of working on the specific or becoming specialists with a reservoir of expertise on certain groups of fossils. However, problems of research are not resolved by generalists or theoreticians, who can suggest or persuade but do not resolve. Progress in understanding the fossil record comes from the work of specialists who provide the data needed to test ideas. The development of tools like databases does not alter the basic way science advances. There seems to be little place in the new paleontological order for specialists. There seems to be little opportunity for people who do desire to become specialists. The funding mechanisms are not there to support such research, at the training or the career research level, so there will be no professional positions for them to obtain if they search for employment. All of our institutions now consider that research is important only if it is capable of generating outside funding. Generalists may be able to gain employment, but we end up being an army of generals with few or no private soldiers to support them. Another matter to consider is the increasing marginalization of paleo in the overall research efforts of science. In the example mentioned by Roy - paleoclimate - this research realm is mostly controlled by the geochemists. In the area of evolution, where paleo ought to be dominant, the research realm is dominated by molecular biologists and cladistic biologists. In the realm of age determination, the traditional foundation for paleontology, biostratigraphers are increasingly being pushed aside as geologists use inferred dating (seismic records, etc.) or interpolated dating based on assumed positions of stage or series boundaries in strat sections. The publication of the Gradstein time scale, with its numbers for every stage boundary makes many workers believe that fossil dating is unnecessary. This all leads to the acceptance of 'generally good enough' in contrast to the demand for quality control and the rigorous testing of results. I suggest that the group pondering these issues consider generating some real guidance to students and early career paleontologists. T. Yancey >Many of you may be aware that the Paleontological Society, with >support from NSF, is organizing a workshop and a series of research >forums that will focus on formalizing Future Research Directions in >Paleontology (FRDP). The first of these forums was held at the NAPC >in Halifax. Following that forum, I produced a very basic initial >document for establishing a strategic plan for paleontology over the >next ten years. The aim of this document (and of the FRDP) is not to >lay out specific research proposals. Instead, it is to provide a >format for discussion of our long-term goals as a field and how we >can best reach them. I have set up the document as a "Wiki" at >http://paleontologyplan.pbwiki.com. If you are not familiar with >wikis, this is a webpage that can be edited by anyone with password >access (the password is phacops). All changes are tracked, >including who makes them. This mechanism will allow broad and open >participation in the FRDP process by members of the paleontological >community. If you do edit the Wiki, please indicate on the "Front >Page" what section(s) you worked on. >For more information on the FRDP, please contact David Bottjer at: >dbottjer@usc.edu. Contact me for questions on the wiki. - Roy -- >Roy E. Plotnick
Partial index: