No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Soliciting Community Input on Culture and Ethics of Geologic Sampling
... These changes will need to be institutionalized and systemic, beginning with increased awareness of issues presented by participants at the Town Hall and expanded upon here. This shift is happening already, with professional societies initiating data collection on current practices and community input on better practices of geologic sampling (Chan & Mogk, 2022). Individuals across the geoscience community (at grassroots and leadership levels) can contribute to these shifts by voicing their perspectives and experiences around ethics of sampling and permission. ...
... Many Indigenous groups are now building frameworks to establish and maintain legal rights for the lands, waters, and skies (NPR, 2019;Drissi, 2020). An Institutional Review Board (IRB) process for fieldwork proposals could uphold and protect these rights whether or not a legal precedent exists (e.g., Chan & Mogk, 2022;Mogk, 2022;Mogk et al., 2017). The IRB application could require a statement on potential impacts of fieldwork and sampling to the locale, and demonstrate the level to which the project involves Indigenous collaboration, co-assessed with Indigenous partners. ...
Plain Language Summary
Ethics in Earth and space sciences is important. Many geoscientists may be unaware or were never explicitly taught ethical protocols for their work (in particular, for field sampling). Geoscientists gathered for conversations about the importance of ethical sampling at a Town Hall at the 2021 American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting convened by the AGU Geomagnetism, Paleomagnetism and Electromagnetism Section and the Geological Society of America (GSA). This work provides context for and elaborates on the discussion at that Town Hall and in focused meetings that stemmed from it, including critical review and comments from the AGU Indigenous Action Committee and other colleagues. These discussions highlighted the need to focus on Indigenous perspectives, knowledges, and relationship to the land when defining what is ethical, and that expanding geoethics in partnership with Indigenous experts will improve equity in geoscience. Taking samples from lands, waters, and environments may have different meaning to Indigenous communities than to many people in the geosciences. Sharing samples that have already been collected between researchers and teaching ethical, careful sampling techniques are fundamental. Reviewing studies throughout their planning and execution for ethical sampling and permission will increase accountability.
... The growing concerns about the ethics of geologic sampling are relevant to teaching, research, and our geoheritage (Chan and Mogk, 2022). This paper examines our current culture and attitudes on ethics from sample collection to archiving, based on a community survey across multiple professional societies and geoscience disciplines, as well as a Geological Society of America (GSA) Connects 2022 Noontime Lecture Town Hall. ...
Scientific practices stemming from colonialism, whereby middle- and low-income countries supply data for high-income countries and the contributions of local expertise are devalued, are still prevalent today in the field of palaeontology. In response to these unjust practices, countries such as Mexico and Brazil adopted protective laws and regulations during the twentieth century to preserve their palaeontological heritage. However, scientific colonialism is still reflected in many publications describing fossil specimens recovered from these countries. Here, we present examples of ‘palaeontological colonialism’ from publications on Jurassic–Cretaceous fossils from NE Mexico and NE Brazil spanning the last three decades. Common issues that we identified in these publications are the absence of both fieldwork and export permit declarations and the lack of local experts among authorships. In Mexico, access to many fossil specimens is restricted on account of these specimens being housed in private collections, whereas a high number of studies on Brazilian fossils are based on specimens illegally reposited in foreign collections, particularly in Germany and Japan. Finally, we outline and discuss the wider academic and social impacts of these research practices, and propose exhaustive recommendations to scientists, journals, museums, research institutions and government and funding agencies in order to overcome these practices.
Sampling biases in the fossil record distort estimates of past biodiversity. However, these biases not only reflect the geological and spatial aspects of the fossil record, but also the historical and current collation of fossil data. We demonstrate how the legacy of colonialism and socioeconomic factors, such as wealth, education and political stability, impact the global distribution of fossil data over the past 30 years. We find that a global power imbalance persists in palaeontology, with researchers in high- or upper-middle-income countries holding a monopoly over palaeontological knowledge production by contributing to 97% of fossil data. As a result, some countries or regions tend to be better sampled than others, ultimately leading to heterogeneous spatial sampling across the globe. This illustrates how efforts to mitigate sampling biases to obtain a truly representative view of past biodiversity are not disconnected from the aim of diversifying and decolonizing our discipline.
As practitioners of a historical science, paleontologists and geoscientists are well versed in the idea that the ability to understand and to anticipate the future relies upon our collective knowledge of the past. Despite this understanding, the fundamental role that the history of paleontology and the geosciences plays in shaping the structure and culture of our disciplines is seldom recognized and therefore not acted upon sufficiently. Here, we present a brief review of the history of paleontology and geology in Western countries, with a particular focus on North America since the 1800s. Western paleontology and geology are intertwined with systematic practices of exclusion, oppression, and erasure that arose from their direct participation in the extraction of geological and biological resources at the expense of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC). Our collective failure to acknowledge this history hinders our ability to address these issues meaningfully and systemically in present-day educational, academic, and professional settings. By discussing these issues and suggesting some ways forward, we intend to promote a deeper reflection upon our collective history and a broader conversation surrounding racism, colonialism, and exclusion within our scientific communities. Ultimately, it is necessary to listen to members of the communities most impacted by these issues to create actionable steps forward while holding ourselves accountable for the past.
Some geological outcrops have a special scientific or educational value, represent a geological type locality and/or have a considerable aesthetical/photographic value. Such important outcrops require appropriate management to safeguard them from potentially damaging and destructive activities. Damage done to such rock exposures can include drill sampling by geologist for scientific purposes. In this work, we show how outcrops important to structural geology and petrology can be damaged unnecessarily by drill coring. Unfortunately, regulation and protection mechanisms and codes of conduct can be ineffective. The many resources of geological information available to the geoscientist community, e.g. via Internet, promote access to sites of geological interest, but can also have a negative effect on their conservation. Geoethical education on rock sampling is therefore critical for conservation of the geological heritage. Geoethical principles and educational actions are aimed to be promoted at different levels to improve geological sciences development and to enhance conservation of important geological sites.
CORRESPONDENCE
Destructive geoscientific sampling can have ethical repercussions. It can disrupt archives of Earth’s history (see R. Butler Nature Geosci. 8, 817–818; 2015) and the management of landscapes and geological formations that have local cultural significance (see Nature Geosci. 14, 537; 2021). ...
This is the second volume focused on geoethics published by the Geological Society of London. This is a significant step forward in which authors address the maturation of geoethics. The field of geoethics is now ready to be introduced outside the geoscience community as a logical platform for global ethics that addresses anthropogenic changes. Geoethics has a distinction in the geoscientific community for discussing ethical, social and cultural implications of geoscience knowledge, research, practice, education and communication. This provides a common ground for confronting ideas, experiences and proposals on how geosciences can supply additional service to society in order to improve the way humans interact responsibly with the Earth system. This book provides new messages to geoscientists, social scientists, intellectuals, law- and decision-makers, and laypeople. Motivations and actions for facing global anthropogenic changes and their intense impacts on the planet need to be governed by an ethical framework capable of merging a solid conceptual structure with pragmatic approaches based on geoscientific knowledge. This philosophy defines geoethics.
Geological samples must be archived for all if we are to solve the riddles of Earth’s complex history. Geological samples must be archived for all if we are to solve the riddles of Earth’s complex history.
Despite legislation to protect natural sites, rock outcrops are being damaged in the name of science. Scientists, funders and publishers must push forward a stronger code of ethics.
In 1989 the UK's Geologists' Association (GA) published the Code of Conduct for Rock Coring, a best practice guide to rock sampling by means of coring. The preparation of a code in the UK was required following acts of thoughtlessness by some researchers that permanently defaced outcrops ruining their photographic value. Despite the existence of the GA Code the vandalizing effects of irresponsible coring continue to this day and the cumulative effects are becoming increasingly apparent to even the most casual observers. As well as damaging exposures, irresponsible coring is tarnishing the reputation of geological science and there is concern that relations with landowners may be threatened by irresponsible coring, which may impact upon future sampling and research in the worst affected areas. Consequently, there is an urgent requirement for the reestablishment and promotion of a ‘Code of Conduct for Rock Coring’ based on the principles of the GA Code. To maximize awareness of the code and to ensure good practice guidance is not lost with the passage of time, its ethos could become enshrined in Earth science educational programmes. Just as importantly, adherence to the code could become an integral component of the standard ethical procedure conditions, attached to research funding for projects involving rock sampling.
America's Geoheritage II: Identifying, developing, and preserving America's natural legacy
- E Sztein
- P Whitacre
- Rapporteurs
Sztein, E., and Whitacre, P., rapporteurs,
2021, America's Geoheritage II: Identifying, developing, and preserving America's natural legacy,
Proceedings of a workshop: U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:
https://nap.edu/26316 (accessed 28 June 2022).
Provenance matters: Nature Geoscience, v. 14
Nature Geoscience, 2021, Provenance matters:
Nature Geoscience, v. 14, p. 537, 5 Aug. 2021,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00814-0
(accessed 28 June 2022).
Society for Vertebrate Paleontology
Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, Ethics Code,
https://vertpaleo.org/code-of-conduct/ (accessed
28 June 2022).