Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in D:\nadm\history\init.inc.php on line 75 地質名人館
  • 館藏編號:NTUG010-T700033
  • 題名:岩石地球化學及地球的演化
  • 作者:孫賢鉥
  • 藏品形式:稿本
  • 尺寸:297X210(mm)
  • 簡述:第三講 微量元素及同位素在岩漿成因研究上的應用
  • 內容:

    be more varied, personnel exchange more common, and international programs of global scope far more intense.
    Some well-known routes to discovery played major roles in the plate-tectonics revolution. Adapting a technique or an instrument from another field to study of the Earth may be the most consistently successful way of producing major discovery in earth science. Modified wartime devices, for example, were critical factors in observation of the ocean basins. Entering an interdisciplinary area also improves one's chances for discovery, although not necessarily for funding. The grass may not be greener on the other side of the fence, but it is commonly greener and longer beneath the fence. Success often comes to individuals who make the effort to learn more than one discipline, as did those who studied the ocean basins.
    Now let's shift briefly to the topic of innovation in GSA. DNAG, the initiation of the publication Geology, Penrose conferences, growing support for research, renovation of the Bulletin, and construction of the Boulder headquarters are some examples of innovation in GSA over the past decade or two. That GSA will change further is inevitable. Recently, a small ad hoc committee under the chairmanship of Brian Skinner developed recommendations for changes in GSA between now and the year 2000. The Path to 2000 Committee recommended a new and newsy publication, increasing computerization of the publishing process, increasing attention to global geology, large mega projects to follow DNAG, an award for young geoscientists, and joint meetings with other societies. Probably most of these recommendations will be implemented by the Council. Additional suggestions for new or modified activity by GSA are welcome.
    GSA members should not confine their attention solely to the welfare of their scientific society. A still larger issue awaits. It concerns the strength of earth science in general as it plays its role in modern society. We must continually ask ourselves if we're doing it right, that is, are we carrying out our science so as to bring society the optimum benefit ill both a practical and all intellectual sense?
    For those geological activities in the economic sector, the answer to that question in principle comes from the marketplace. In the case of academic science, the answer, or even how to arrive at the answer, is not so clear.
    We can compare our science with other sciences. This exercise has some merit even though just what the relative strengths of the various sciences should be has never been clear to anyone. The solid-earth sciences come off only moderately well in such comparisons. Our challenges and opportunities are first rate. Some sciences seem better at stimulating societal support for their activities and more effective at publicizing the intellectual excitement of their science. Some say geology is not sufficiently adept at presenting its case to the so-called political decision makers. Perhaps that is correct, but all-out political lobbying is not the forte of many scientists. We earth scientists could profit, however, by communicating the excitement and challenge of our science in jargon-free style to scientists of other disciplines who, in fact, frequently are the administrative decision makers at many levels in government.
    Earth science is different from some sciences in that it has a rather large applied component that both contributes to and inhibits the basic research effort. The contributions arc obvious-huge quantities of observations and the thoughtful study of them. The inhibitions are less obvious. A scientific plan to drill a deep hole into the Earth to explore the unknown is subconsciously limited by the scale and cost of the deepest holes drilled by industry. A $5O-million hole sounds expensive. One year sounds long. Ten kilometres sounds deep. A physicist exploring the unknown, say, the subatomic world, feels no such inhibitions. His limit is the scope of his vision. He proposes a $6-billion accelerator. A space scientist proposes a multibillion-dollar space vehicle or mission to a planet. Yet, it is in no way obvious that such experiments, exciting as they may be, will benefit the bulk of humanity nearly so much as, say, a comprehensive program for geological exploration of the unknown parts of the Earth.
    Another way to evaluate modem science is through the perspective of history. Perhaps some of you have read Boorstin's recent book, The Discoverers. One continuing theme throughout the book is the effect of social attitudes and customs upon discovery. I refer not merely to the well-known dominance of religion and theology over pursuit of knowledge in the Middle Ages, but also to innumerable other positive and negative factors including the search for trade by Europeans; the sense of ""already being there"" by the Chinese who, after a brief period of exploration of the seas in the 15th century, actively discouraged seafaring; or the failure of the Vikings to recognize the discovery of something with exceptional potential when they sailed to America.
    Against this backdrop of varying attitudes toward exploration throughout history, the present seems a particularly good time for discovery. If not optimum, it is the best so far. We live in what future historians will probably refer to as the ""era of science."" There is no guarantee that it will continue indefinitely.
    I am reminded of a TV program a few years ago in which Helen O'Connell, the great singer of the Jimmy Dorsey band of the 1930s and 1940s, was asked a routine question. The interviewer said, ""Helen what was it like to be a part of the big band era of popular music?"" Helen gave a nonroutine but provocative answer. She said, ""Well, if I'd known it was going to be an era, I would have paid more attention to it.""
    Perhaps we should pay more attention to our era, try to see it in the light of history and to enhance it, and at least not let it die away because of inadequate leadership and vision on our part. In recent years, we research scientists, because of past and potential contributions to the welfare of society, have become a privileged class, highly educated and trained at society's expense and supported in activities of our choice. In return for the trust that is placed in us, we must make certain that our science is always carried out in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Otherwise, we shall ultimately lose that support.
    One approach for earth science at present might be the development of a comprehensive plan of unprecedented scope to explore the entire Earth in a rational manner using all existing observational techniques. Ignore cost and schedule for the moment. Of what are we capable at present? Developments in technique, communication, transportation, data handling, and so on, have made a sparkling spectrum of activities possible. Let's tell this to the world. Why keep it secret? Of course, economic factors will affect the schedule. Nevertheless, for inspiration and guidance and recognition, we need a comprehensive global plan for exploration of the solid Earth. I do not mean simply a lofty but nebulous goal, nor do I mean a plan that schedules activities in detail or that inhibits the initiative of the independent investigator. I mean a plan that presents a global perspective and a global framework within which we can evaluate and stimulate individual efforts. Such a plan would be grandiose and constantly in need of revision, hut it would have the advantages of clarifying and illuminating our goals and portraying our task as a finite, although long and difficult, one. At present, such an effort would use the plate-tectonics paradigm as the base and would consist largely of what Kuhn refers to as ""normal science,"" that is, science conducted within the rules of the paradigm.
    However, the effort would encourage the development of new paradigms, that is, major discovery, and in fact, the observational effort could be prioritized so as to foster new paradigms. I generation was so overwhelmed by the discovery of plate tectonics that it is difficult for us to imagine something still greater. Perhaps a new generation will find one. Possibilities for new paradigms of smaller scale are readily apparent, how-