Random Notes

From
Date
I can't see this amateur vs. profession string going anywhere positive. I'm
a professional paleontologist and I get treated in a condescending manner
on occasion by colleagues. Regrettably, I have also been insensitive to the
feelings and expectations of amateurs/students/colleagues on occasion. All
of us, amateur and professional alike, have good days and bad days in this
regard. It's not a trait of the field, just the failings of individuals. I
suggest we try to move past this discussion because the point has been made.

In rereading the Paleo21 topic reports last night I was again struck by the
discontinuity between the industrial and academic sides of our profession.
It seems clear from the write-ups of the Consultancies, Funding Agencies,
Government, Independent Paleontologists, and Industry groups that the
industrial contribution of paleontology hinges on
biostratigraphy/geochronology/stratigraphy and depends on paleontologists
being familiar enough with related geological disciplines (e.g.,
seismology/geophysics, sedimentology) to be effective "team members" at
worst, "team leaders" at best. These groups also point out that in the face
of upcoming retirements by established industrial paleontologists (many of
whom began their careers in the 60's) the market for paleontologists
trained in these skills will grow. On the other hand, many of the reports
of the Paleontological Themes groups (Biostratigraphy/Geochronology being
the obvious exception) focus on topics whose industrial application will be
extremely limited. Moreover, The prognosis from the Academia report
suggests that courses in systematics/biostratigraphy will shrink in favor
of theme-related topics like "Dinosaurs" and "Extinctions." Karl Flessa &
colleagues make an interesting comparison between the performance (for lack
of a better word) of geophysics and geochemistry vs. paleontology as
academic groups over the last few decades. Karl's data shows these sciences
are growing whereas paleontology is unchanged with strong indications that
it is about to undergo precipitous decline in the academy.

Can these threads be drawn together into a coherent story that will help us
understand where we are, how we got here, and where we need to go? I think
they can. Since the 1960's a series of developments, research trends, etc.
substantially broadened the field of paleontology and captured the
imaginations of several generations of younger paleontologists. These
developments included paleoecology (60's-70's), paleobiology (late
60's-present), punctuated equilibria (70's-80's), mass extinctions
(80's-present), as well as other topics. Prior to this revolution--for that
is what it was--paleontology was mostly applied and had a strong
systematic/stratigraphic emphasis. From the 60's onwards, however,
paleontology exploded into many new areas many of which were only partially
based on the systematic/biostratigraphic training of our academic
ancestors. In effect, we were turned loose in a new world and have spent
much of the last 30 years putting our best efforts into areas other than
the "old world" systematics/stratigraphy that provided the traditional
rationale for the presence of paleontology in industrial and academic
settings. Thus, whereas several technological and conceptual revolutions
have taken place in geophysics and geochemistry that have enhanced the
"cost-effectiveness" of these sciences to their industrial masters and in
turn promoted their growth in academic settings, systematically and
stratigraphically-oriented paleontologists still do things pretty much the
same way they did in the early 1960's and are still scrambling to justify
themselves and their data in a world dominated by sequence and seismic
stratigraphy to managers who have received very little formal training in
the paleontological and stratigraphic arts.

I feel kind of funny making these arguments in that I got interested in
paleontology because of its aesthetic and intellectual (as opposed to
applied) dimensions. I really enjoy working on evolutionary, functional
morphologic, phylogenetic, ecological, climatological problems and although
I'm well trained in biostratigraphy and systematics, I really don't do much
those on a day-to-day basis. However, I think the Paleo21 document makes it
clear that in order for paleontology to match the performance of
disciplines such as geophysics and geochemistry we have to pay far more
attention to developing the applied systematics/stratigraphy side of our
field in the future than we have in the past.

The immediate problem is how to do this. Looking around at the academic and
museum-based paleontological staffs, they are pretty much like myself,
people who got into paleontology because of the interesting evolutionary
ideas that were coming out of journals like Paleobiology, Systematic
Zoology, and Evolution. I think it's very unlikely that we, as a group,
will abandon our interest in the issues we have built our careers on.
Nevertheless, if we don't honestly embrace and work toward raising the
skill levels (not just the profile) of applied paleontological analyses in
industrial settings I fear we will continue to see our field shrink in
favor of those geological disciplines who can make improved contributions
in such settings.


Norm MacLeod





___________________________________________________________________

Dr. Norman MacLeod
Micropalaeontological Research
N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk (E-mail)

Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD

Office Phone: 0171-938-9006
Dept. FAX: 0171-938-9277
E-mail: N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk
___________________________________________________________________