Re: paleonet Geobiology

[Ian Francis <ian.francis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 There are indeed conceptual issues that (in Norm's words) geobiology takes for its own.   I would claim they're based on the realisation that it is impossible to separate many geological processes and living systems - on all scales in time and space.  On the  nannoscale mineral surface reactions are mediated by bacteria for example, on the meso-scale processes such as weathering and diagenesis are in part biogeochemical, and of course on the macro scale organisms play a vital role in global element cycling, evolution of atmospheric chemistry etc.

It follows that paleontology may need to widen its viewpoint to encompass the interaction between living and non-living earth systems, and the linked evolution of both (a fair enough catch-all definition of Geobiology). Nothing new there, but one starting point has to be the biogeochemistry of modern environments and organisms, which is why molecular evolution, microbiology, microbial ecology,  geomicrobiology and so on,  will probably have important roles to play in the geobiological enterprise. Paleontology will maybe need to forge stronger links with these biological specialities if it wants to join in the fun.

Ian Francis

At 12:32 22/10/2002 -0400, you wrote:

For some, it seems as though geobiology is linked to astrobiology somehow.

This would appear to be how geochemists think of "geobiology".

Others (e.g., Carl Brett who teaches a course in geobiology at Cincinnati) think of it as a junior synonym for historical geology, with perhaps a bit more chemistry thrown in.

This would appear to be how geologists who look at rocks think of 'geobiology'.

 Still others (e.g., Caltech), think of it as "the use of information preserved in and by the biosphere to attack problems of importance for understanding the geological evolution of the Earth."

In other words, like astrobiology, but with more emphasis on conjectured events on "early Earth" (i.e. how did all the systems as we know them get up and running?)

There's even a 'Geobiology of Life' Program out there, described as "the result of forty years of combined research in microbiology, forestry, and herbal nutrition, along with diverse experience through the studies of metaphysics, the Far East and American Indian shamanism.

Uh.  This sounds like a case of New Age folks siezing upon what they perceive to be science catch-phrases in an effort to give legitimacy to their non-scientific methods of inquiry.

Consequently, my question is what (if anything) is geobiology and how is it related to the other branches of paleontology?

NSF seems to be referring to 'geobiology' as 'biogeoscience'.
http://www.geo.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/showprog.pl?id=114&div=ear
When it comes right down to it (in this country), what NSF thinks it is, is what it is.

the paleobiology movement of late 60's and 70's.

Carl Brett's conception of 'geobiology' probably has the strongest connection to this historical movement.  More power to him.

Last, but not least, does geobiology appeal to students more readily than historical geology, sedimentology, oceanography, etc? If so, why?

Conjectures:  (1) Students gravitate toward what appears to be "hot" (i.e., is the Discovery Channel throwing the phrase around?); (2) many students are interested in interdisciplinary work because their minds are not yet beholden to a specialty.

Bill
--
-----------------------------------------------
William P. Chaisson        
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
University of Rochester                       ph  585-275-0601
Rochester, New York  14627  USA            fax  585-244-5689

http://www.earth.rochester.edu/chaisson/chaisson.html