People Power

In previous posts I’ve looked at how geoscience either does or doesn’t interact with people, well now it’s time to look the other way – how organisations get people involved geoscience.  The benefits, both in terms of outreach and research are great.

GSA – Geological Survey of America has its own outreach page: http://www.geosociety.org/educate/ that features the areas to get involved with a number of 

projects – the two that are more suited to the interested, general public are:

EarthCache ‘Geocaching adventures with an geoscience twist.’ – Geocaching is a cross between orienteering and treasure hunting using GPS points, commonly they are small boxes or jars that include an object, anyone who find the box/jar can remove the object – as long as they replace it with something else.  The EarthCache is different, rather than an object, ‘their treasure is the lessons people learn about our planet when they visit the site.’ There are around 10500 different ‘EarthCaches’ and the site is enthusiastic towards the public, each Cache has an individual article written in simple(ish) language, with plenty of information and easy to follow step by step instructions as how to access the sites – it’s almost university fieldwork, but without the debt.

Understandably, there is a significant skew towards American sites, but there is a generous helping of European destinations – including a decent amount of German ones.  This is a brilliant example of outreach, it’s cheap to run, very varied, has a community aspect to it, gets geoscience into people’s mind via an esteemed society.  However this sort of outreach is fairly subtle, the whole idea of GeoCaching is that you have to look for the objects, they are 

by definition hidden and therefore people have to need to know that this project exists.

If running around isn’t for you though, The GSA has partnered with a staggering number of geological surveys and societies to develope ‘EarthTrek’ http://www.goearthtrek.com/ it’s also on the ever popular Twitter (although, with a less that staggering 47 followers). At present it is running a series of different projects to use ‘citizens’ as collectors of important data to track Gravestone erosion using kit that a large proportion of society may well have (GPS receiver, callipers). This gives people a double edged interest – some people may be interested in the artistry of the stones, others in the demographics, others in the composition themselves – this is a great project with a scientific (and environmental) aim

EarthTrek also runs a Quake Catcher Network http://www.goearthtrek.com/QCN/QCN.html, utilising the public in tracking and monitoring Earthquakes, similar schemes are worldwide, such as the UK School Seismology Project, run by the BGS, which utilised seismometers, installed in schools across the country to interest children in seismicity – in a fairly geological inactive country. These schemes are highly worthwhile, they allow children to see how real scientists study the globe, in areas of more tectonism they can be used to discuss hazards (ultimately saving lives). Going further than this, more technological laptops and desktops, within their hard drives have a small motion sensor (in order to minimise damage when dropped) can be used as micro-seismographs in a global network  to track earthquakes globally. Not only is this useful for research, it allows large sectors of the community, to if they wish get involved in what is often viewed to be a mysterious science.

Looking back to this side of the pond, the Geological Society of London, has involvement in other areas, it has a diverse number of pleasant to listen to podcasts, specifically designed to be listened to on personal media devices (or as everyone else calls them ‘ipods’). ‘casts’ include important, but often misunderstood aspects of the geosciences. The Society also has produced a nice little document, aimed at children, discussing how geology is important to people’s lives or how resources are trapped and extracted.

However, good although these resources are, they are not exhibited in full light on the societies website – and besides, as I’ve already demonstrated in earlier posts – people do not use societies to get knowledge. If you want to know about an aspect of chemistry, do you go on Wikipedia or pop along the Royal Society of Chemistry?  

Falling Short of the Park

Recently the South Downs in Southern England became a National Park, granting the region a boost to tourism, altered planning regulations and plenty of new signs (amongst other things). The new national park has a website, designed to both attract visitors and give local people more information about, what is in essence their local authority.

http://www.southdowns.gov.uk

The National Park Authority

Geologically, the South Downs National Park are an area of Chalk, Early Cretaceous clays and sandstones folded by the Wealden anticline during the Cenezoic. The actual ‘downs’ themselves are the remains of the chalk cover that once stretched across the Weald to just south of London. So, what does the website (and therefore we can assume most of the paperwork) from Britain’s newest National Park have to say about the rocks?

Well firstly, where is Geology on the site? Logically it would be accessible under Learning, which it is, but within that subsection it is hidden under the unexciting ‘Themes to Study’ – not exactly going to entice too many people into the regions geology. The site blurts on about the beautiful landscape – but seems to hide the factors behind the landscapes formation.

‘To really appreciate the South Downs landscape you need to understand how it was formed.’ South Downs National Park Site

Apparently, Most of the rocks that make up the South Downs were formed 120 million years ago – which is odd as Seaford Head, a promontory within the chalk is in fact the stratigraphic boundary between the Santonian and Campanian - 83 million years ago. While stratigraphically the lowest rocks in the new National Park, the Wealden Clay are considered post-Tithonian/pre W Aptian in age or for those without beards, 151-125Ma. In fact only the Lower Greensand and Weald Clay are the only rocks in the park’s boundaries that could be considered to have for. The site’s very own stratigraphic column even places  only the lower units around the 120 Ma mark!

Coast of the National Park - an iconic image

Moving on from the bigger picture, what about the individual units... as something that actually got me into geology in the first place. Flints...

‘Flint was formed from the skeletons of minute animals, such as radiolarians, that floated around in those ancient seas.’

Firstly, very few people know what a ‘radiolarian’ is, I’ve touched upon this within the GSL Q&A page; ‘remains of tiny creatures’ would have been better. Secondly, there is a lot of debate as to the generation of flint –it took me a good few minutes to track down a digestible paper – which indicates that the flint was formed via microbacterial activity. Surely it is more exciting to the reader to just be honest, say you don’t know, or give a couple of theories (wherever they may be hiding)

‘20 million years – The Alpine Storm’

Maybe the first time orogenic activity has been viewed as a ‘storm’ – a completely useless term – meaning too many other things (weather, political etc) to be of use to anyone! The document goes onto place the Himalayas as being due to the Africa’s convergence with Eurasia. It then gets the order of diagenesis wrong (anticline formed THEN diagenesis – which is absurd – brittle faulting, was in action during the uplift).

What does this site say then, about geoscience communication? Firstly, it is difficult to get to, a casual observer wandering round the site is unlikely stumble upon the page on geology; and when they do information is not correct. The geology of the area is fascinating enough, without the need for incorrect data. 

Language Barrier

Recently I was doing a little bit of fieldwork in Cyprus and having successfully mastered two words of Greek, my interest was ignited in how geological organisations deal with multiple tongues in the regions they serve.

So, the BGS

The diverse site has bountiful English language resources – as expected. But what about the other languages that are present in the UK? In Wales (making up 3 million of the 62 million people living in the UK) , 21% of the population speak Welsh, the only Celtic language that enjoys official status (BBC) yet there is no provision for the welsh language on the BGS site, nor is there provision for Punjab – the second most spoken language in the UK. In terms of interest for tourists or foreign researchers (In French, German, Spanish etc) the BGS give no provision. Although legally and practically English is the primary language of the UK should it not be, that in a multicultural, prosperous country with a world leading geological survey, that a full provision for the languages spoke in a country is provided?

USGS

Looking across the pond the USGS does slightly better, although the vast majority of the information is solely in English,  the service does offer a page of information related to earthquake risk in Spanish and a series of Asian  languages – although many of the diagrams are still in English. This is very much a token gesture; 35 million Americans speak Spanish as their primary language (over 1% of the population) with the majority in the more tectonically active southern states (34.72% of the population of California speak Spanish). The fact that the data released is one of earthquake safety clearly indicates that the USGS is utilising its resources for educating people against seismic risks – something that can only be good.

In terms of geoscience outreach, the USGS however is not doing well, for all the 36,000 pages on the USGS website having two in other languages hardly could be reprehensive of population. California is one of the most interesting geological places on earth – shouldn’t everybody be able to enjoy the State’s geology? A whole sector of the community is being ignored by the geosciences.

Canada:

Bilingual Canada has, on the other hand a high amount of bilingual speakers, with both French and English widely spoken and taught (27 % of the population). It should, and does, follow that the Canadian Geological Survey should present its information in billlingual format, which it does: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/index_e.php and http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/index_f.php.  Both sites seem roughly comparable (there is some functional differences, but the information is there) and indicate the importance to Canada for an enviable bilingual society.

So, should a countries geological survey have bi or tri language sites? Within the UK we can have a whole range of government documents in multiple languages – surely it follows that publically funded bodies should be presented in multiple languages too? If road signs are in Welsh why shouldn’t information regarding geosciences be too?  Should it not be, that Spanish speakers can enjoy their states geology in their tongue – just like their fellow citizens. 

Clast Unsupported - tales from a small Sussex town

Recently I emailed my local college, where I was educated to see if they wanted any help with geology revision for their GCSE cohort, a couple of years ago I’d been along to one of their fieldtrips for their coursework and felt like lending a hand again. I received a startling reply, that the school no longer runs GCSE Geology (nor A-Level) due to a poor interest rate amongst pupils.  So, further to my previous post on what primary school children have the opportunity to learn within the geosciences it’s worth looking at what students at my former school will have the opportunity to learn about the goings on inside their planet.

So what do the children get taught?

Geoscience tends to get relegated with geography – so only students who whose GCSE (a GCSE is a qualification gained at 16 that is taken by all UK students before progression into A-Levels, diplomas or the working world) geography (within my year of 270 about 60) will receive tuition into the earth’s processes. Rocks and materials (i.e granite is hard, where cement comes from etc) is covered in chemistry through KS3-GCSE. Looking to the syllabus of GSCE Geography (in this case the exam board AQA) there is a strong focus as to the involvement of plate tectonics and associated landforms (ie Fold Mountains and exciting volcanoes). Excluding a mere footnote there is no interest in Resources, nor petrology or palaeontology. Geography students will have the idea that geosciences is about plate tectonics & volcanoes, how it affects peoples and nothing else.  It is not geology they are studying; it is simply physical geography with people.

The town has been flooded as a partially as a result of upstream geology - this is part of taught geography (GCSE). But the affects are on people, not geological past of stratigraphy

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/newgcse/pdf/AQA-4030-CP-SW-W-TRB-TSM.PDF

The focus on exciting aspects of geology would however supply interest – 15 year olds are unlikely to be interested in thrust faulting in Scotland but a huge eruption of Yellowstone (which AQA seem to have an obsession with) may encourage a student to read more – and eventually be captivated.

So, say a teenager in a small Sussex town (Uckfield, for those in the area) decides to have a look into the geosciences what will they find? Well Uckfield has two bookshops and one library (which isn’t quite the coolest place to ‘hang out’) I realise that online books are a major market, but for the purposes of clarity and realism (most 15 year olds don’t have a credit card) I will stick with what is locally available.  So starting with the bookshops.

In WH-Smith I could find no books on the geosciences (couple on GCSE Geography though) but could read to my heart’s content on local buses through the war, Chameleons and Dr Who. Mildly outraged I called my local branch and was informed that the store is not large enough to stock science books. Looking to the magazine rack only New Scientist was propping up science – while there were 10 train-enthusiast magazines and stacks of those with the words ‘country’ ‘house’ and ‘life’. Further down the street ‘British Bookshops’ which stocked no geological books (50% of the shop is devoted to cards) but did feature enough science fiction to fill anyone’s need.  I called the store again to make sure that I wasn’t missing anything - but found that my original searching had proved to be correct. So, within a town of 14,000 people there is no geologically orientated book for sale (admittedly there may be some in the numerous charity shops, but no 15 year old goes in there – except under duress)

14,000 people but no geology taught or sold. 

The library on the other hand has a wealth of decent books, suitable for local interest and public reading. I had attempted to get hold of the number of times these books had been lent in order to assess their interest – but the information, in this digital age is not recorded.  The local library holds eight books which I feel (having read most of them!) give a good introduction to geology across the world and UK (including the brilliant 'Earth: An Intimate History by Fortey' and the child / youth friendly Moving Earth by Orne).  However, the library is rarely frequented by teenagers and from memory I always felt a suspicious and frosty reception whenever I went in there.

The local area is well noted for its geology. Charles Dawson, the lawyer who ‘discovered’ the Piltdown Man lived in the town, while the first dinosaur was discovered 10 miles away, the local company Soil Instruments is a world leader in geotechnical design and the Weald, in which the town sits was discussed by Darwin in this keystone publication and exploited for 2000 years for its iron. So what can we surmise? Well, that interest in the geosciences cannot be relied upon to be stimulated in school (much although I thank several members of staff for propping up my interest during my studies there) due to the watery and non-direct curriculum, nor can interest be gained via local bookshops - this could well be the reasoning behind the cessation of geology being taught at the local college.  The lack of publications available does not just affect the young; adults, whom may have missed out in geology at school or (re)ignited an interest to are denied the opportunity to purchase books in their own town which, although they can access titles online easier, many geological inspired books are easy and pleasant to read for the casual reader (Fortey's Earth for example) and will captivate someone in a shop - but not on Amazon.

This does speak for itself within stats, I am, to my knowledge of the 2 years above and one below (roughly 1000 students), the only student to leave my college and pursue a career in the geosciences. The college has generated enough fashion students to fill Milan, Paris and New York many times over but it is letting the science that will allow those fashionisters to make bright dyes and sparkly dresses falter.   

Time to Learn?

After my last post on a brief session at museum whereby I was involved in discussing geosciences with some children it seemed important to review, what children are taught in the geosciences in order to fit events and outreach into knowledge that the children already have.

 Assuming that children have no prior interest (so have not read anything into it, or have a scary obsession with dinosaurs) so that their geological knowledge extends to that they’ve learnt in the class  room.  As luck would have it, my mother is primary school teacher and I’m back home before a little jaunt off to Cyprus, the house is full of a wealth of books for the education of children, it seemed interesting to see how these publications discuss geological issues.

Trend, 1998 found that children (10 to 11) identified geological time as being composed of two different timeframes, ‘Extremely ancient’ and ‘less ancient’ quite what the timings of these are remain a mystery. However, this introduces the question of what we as geologists should use in terms of geological timing. During outreach events (or similar), where student or professional geologists may be acting, our understanding of geological time is so commonplace, so accepted within our lives that we don’t find the need to water it down to perhaps the level it should be displayed at; practically when discussing ideas with children.

Children also have trouble fitting piecing together geological time (Trend, 2000) which leads to problems when we are trying to explain how a landscape developed or the progression of life through time. Stratigraphy is a vital area of the geosciences hence its early discussion within university courses. How can geological time be brought to children – when there have limited fundamental understanding of the concepts involved?

Perhaps for these reasons geology, as taught within Key Stage 2 avoids geological time – instead discussing the composition of the earth, in terms of layers and the composition of rocks. The rock cycle is also included – with no consideration for the timescales behind it.

Therefore, if the children have never encountered deep time, to a child, a long time ago might be last Christmas, not the Mesozoic. Why therefore do we even try to utilise geological time with children? At the outreach event I last posted on we had posters with the geological timescale on it, we gave away cards with the timescale on it – even trying to put the local geology into a timescale. Clearly it was not a worthy cause, I had wondered why I was getting polite but completely blank faces – the children simply  had nothing to base what we were saying on.

Should we then even bother discussing ‘deep’ time when working with children? Well, either we try to educate children during any contact time into geological time (probably neither practical or even possible) or we simply leave it out – tie ourselves in with the national curriculum. This produces the risk of young minds not having a non theistic timescale set in stone, or a challenge to a preconceived theistic idea set in motion at a young age – surely, for the promotion of ‘mainstream’ geosciences and for the ease of future education introducing the geological time scale at a young age is beneficial? It’s just how to do it that’s the problem!

References:

Trend, R, (1998) Investigation into understanding of geological time among 10- and 11- year old children, International Journal of Science Education, 20, pp 973-988

Trend, R. (2000) Conceptions of geological time among primary trainee teachers, with reference to their engagement with geosciences, history and science, International Journal of Science Education,22 (5), pp 539-555

Touchscreen Display

 Today I had the chance to volunteer on behalf of my university at a local museum, as part of British science week. Which seems to entail plenty of disinterested school children being bussed to a local museum, where a group of scientists from nearby scientific institutions bombard them with a variety of information about mini-beasts, ocean acidification and in our case, fossils and a couple of rocks. The children were UK years 4/5 (so 8-10 year olds) so had plenty of much more interesting things to think about (mainly Pokémon)

Initially the session was run as a stand and point, fossils and objects were held and discussed. With cards with the fossils details assigned to each specimen. Hardly a stimulating session, which left most of the children fairly bored (even their teaching assistant wandered off to look at beetles), language used by my colleague was even getting me bored. What 9 year old cares how ammonites floated? They want to know about big things, and feel the fossil!

This seems to directly be an analogue of a lot of museum exhibits, those hidden behind a glass case, safe, although restricted from curious hands and as a boundary between the object and interested parties. These children may never find an ammonite or a mammoth tooth; so will be denied the opportunity to feel the ribs on the shell or the ridges on the tooth.

With this in mind I decided on a fresh approach, as a mini-experiment to see if the children were more engaged: The kids spend all day being talked to, and we have a table of novel and interesting objects so why not get the kids picking them up? Sure they might get dropped, but the university/ museum has tonnes of ammonites, most of which spend their lives in draws.  

Discussion rather than lecturing proceeded. Yes, if these kids decide to go to university and study geosciences they will experience lectures – but there they want to learn. I also found using things the children would have heard about to get them interested, so there has been plenty of talk in the news about radioactivity in Japan as a result of the goings on down there. Well I had found some raduiohalos halos in the biotites of the thin sections of granites we had – seemed natural to get the kids interested in the minerals by relating it to them, also acted to slightly scare them, which always get children interested!

The children who were touching the objects and looking at them as they should be looked at retained more interest (so we can assume information) and asked questions – rather than stood vacantly. Nothing was dropped (except by me), nothing went missing but more was given.

Going back to the different museum analogue should museums operate in this way? Well there are a couple of problems, firstly it was exhausting enough for 2 hours, anyone doing it for a whole day would be shattered. Secondly we were there to watch the objects so it was unlikely anything was going to go walkabout; in an exhibition with maybe unstaffed anything lying around would have to be secured down or very inexpensive (ammonites on Ebay?! – very cheap). But are these such hurdles for introducing geosciences within a museum environment? – I don’t think so!

Let the Credits Roll: Films and Communicating Geosciences

Everyone loves a good film/movie (or a not so good film), but how good a job do films do in communicating geosciences?

The Core

Well known for being incrediblely inaccurate the 2003 film The Core centres on a group of hardened explorers (sorry terranauts) sent to restart the cores rotation. Which has ceased is causing all sorts of awful goings on involving microwaves and pigeons dropping dead... even the Golden Gate Bridge is affected (never mind the San Andreas – it’s the ‘waves’ that get it!).  A space shuttle even lands in Los Angeles – this has all the ingredients of a great action film.  Naturally the American’s are all over the saving of the world, despite the Russian’s digging the deepest hole on earth, the Italians going the deepest in the ocean (Trieste in the Marians trench) and the South African’s having the deepest mines. Although those three are based in reality.

Just above the Core, Interesting lava lake and big area of clear material which the  drilling craft is floating on. 

The aforementioned terranauts head, without too much discomfort to the core descending via the Marianas trench (which opens during a quake despite being part of a subduction zone), into what looks like a lava tube – complete with an explosion despite there being no oxygen. Eventually after massacring some more of the mantle they get to the core and using nuclear bombs to get the thing rotating again and save the world. 


In the process they explore a cave full of quartz (which should really be a little further up, having crystallised) 800km down and although its a bit toasty – there isn’t too much pressure. Besides getting through the solid (due to the pressure) Iron/Nickel core is pretty simple too. The film may well be entertaining; but the idea that the mantle can be drilled through is utter nonsense – what’s concerning is that plenty of people do not read about the earth, their knowledge comes from films and TV.

An odd mineralogical assemblage; Quartz + Magma (should be Olivine or at least Websterite)  + Hideous Inaccuracy

Since there are so few films which actually bring geology in an interesting, factually accurate manner there is a strong possibility that people may just see the film and think that it’s based on some real science; That the mantle is home to huge chasms, lava lakes and quartz crystals. When I was younger, I loved Jules Vernes journey to the centre of the earth; even for its factual inaccuracy; even while reading it as a child I knew it was wrong; but that book was one of the reasons I became interested in geology.

Volcano

Combining film makers favourite place to destroy and a generous heaping of inaccuracy volcano is basically about LA getting a little warm under a brand new volcano. The magma supposedly rises up the San Andreas Fault;  which is a little odd as the San Andreas is strike/slip – and doesn’t support magamtism along its length; nearby areas (such as Long Valley) have magmatism, but they are related to normal faulting.  Besides it passes to the 30-40 miles NE of LA.  The lava which slowly engulfs the city also has odd properties; it looks basaltic (given the flow structures and fact it isn’t forming pyroclastic flows) yet cars are covered in what looks like rhyolitic material. Since the film makers couldn’t decide was erupting it is hardly surprising that they couldn’t decide what was melting either; Basaltic magma is usually around 800°C, while granitic magma sits around1200°C -1350°C. Oddly aluminium with a melting point of 660°C appears remarkably resilient; as the lava flows around street lights, traffic poles and all the bits and pieces sitting around in a city.

'The Coast is Toast': That might be so, but aluminium seems pretty fine.

Given that volcanoes are such a popular ‘popularist’ geology topic to get into it seems curious to have such gapping errors within a fairly successful (and enjoyable film). It displays a lack of understanding into geodynamic processes, petrology and basic physics. The confusion of ‘volcanic eruption so we get ash’ is, alongside one of my pet hates a potentially dangerous problem if any filmgoers experience a more mafic (yet still deadly) eruption they may not recognise the risks (its a bit unlikely but a possibility). 

Turning the argument on it’s head is the possibility that the film will introduce people to the geosceinces. The film made $122,823,468; so we can safely assume that quite a few people saw it ($122,823,468/$5 profit per ticket = 24,564,693.6); if even a fraction of those people then developed even a passing interest in the geosciences then that is surely a good thing? While a volcano in LA is unlikely the film may have awoken residents of that city and others to the significant seismic hazards, which exist; promoting education which can save lives – surely that is a beneficial too?

Looking to another volcanic film, Dantes Peak (I haven't seen it so can't go into much detail), which overall looks like Mt St Helens 2 – the events from this film could be used in an educational manner to educate local people to the NW Pacific region into the warning signs (Earthquake) and to what may well happen if they get left behind.  57 people died in the eruption of Mt St Helens in 1980; is it possible that a popular, exciting film may provide the personal knowledge to minimise those deaths? 

Day After Tomorrow

‘This movie is to climate science as Frankenstein is to heart transplant surgery.’

William Hyde of Duke University

Climate change runs rampant, plunging the world into a new Ice Age. There is no need for a critical review here as I stumbled on this: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/6e52157aaf63775f?pli=1 from Paleoclimatologist William Hyde of Duke University; who knows his stuff. It took a little while to load; but is well worth a read – particularly if you have a seen the film,  host a bit of knowledge in ‘climate science’ and utilize a working brain.

Given that knowledge of what man induced cooling is considered to be doing to the planet should be, in my opinion using a popular film to inspire is the transmission of the risks of climate change; which should really be common knowledge  is the way to do it, but it’s like dealing with young children: You give them a inch (climate change will cause global cooling across large areas) and they take a light year (going to happen, will affect New York, massive tsunami and instant frozenness).

Tidal Wave / Tsunami which soon freezes - very quickly

What line can science take? It would be foolish to shun all films which feature some form of geological aspect, our science is in many ways lucky to have such exciting processes ongoing and Hollywood has the money to make people excited about the more juicy bits of geosciences (I would love to see a film on Barrovian Metamorphism - 'We're 20km down and its getting hotter; amphibolite is growing!').  However the mistakes made within many a production can lead to an over-sensationist  viewpoint, leading the public wrong with basic geological inaccuracies; which may not be corrected until challenged. The answer, I feel is then to engage with a film and to present the ‘real’ science alongside use the momentum generated by a popular production to get people interested, be it onto a factual website or buried into a book. 


Knowledge and interest can only be a good thing.