Nanogeoscience - Elements

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Improving on nature: Treatments James E. Shigley and Shane F. McClure (Gemological Institute of America) Pearls and corals: Trendy biomineralizations Jean-Pierre Gauthier (Lyon) and Stefanos Karampelas (University of Thessaloniki and Université de Nantes) Volume 5, Number 4 (August 2009) MINERAL MAGNETISM: FROM MICROBES TO METEORITES GUEST EDITORS: Richard J. Harrison (University of Cambridge) and Joshua M. Feinberg (University of Minnesota) An example of a fully processed electron hologram showing a cross-section through a magnetite/ulvöspinel inclusion exsolved in clinopyroxene. This particular image was collected at 89 K (-184°C). White lines indicate the outline of individual magnetite grains. The magnetization in the plane of the image is indicated using contours, colors, and arrows. The hologram shows the magnetic induction within and between magnetite grains, allowing for the study of non-uniform magnetization within individual grains as well as magnetostatic interactions among populations of grains. Magnetic minerals are ubiquitous in the natural environment. They are also present in a wide range of biological organisms, from bacteria to human beings. These minerals carry a wealth of information encoded in their magnetic properties. Mineral magnetism decodes this information and applies it to an ever increasing range of geoscience problems, from the origin of magnetic anomalies on Mars to quantifying variations in Earth’s paleoclimate. The last ten years have seen a striking improvement in our ability to detect and image, with higher and higher resolution, the magnetization of minerals in geological and biological samples. This issue is devoted to some of the most exciting recent developments in mineral magnetism and their applications to Earth and environmental sciences, astrophysics, and biology. Mineral magnetism: Providing new insights into geoscience processes Richard J. Harrison (University of Cambridge) and Joshua M. Feinberg (University of Minnesota) Magnetic monitoring of climate and environmental health Barbara Maher (Lancaster University) Single-crystal paleomagnetism John Tarduno (University of Rochester) Insights into biomagnetism using electron holography and electron tomography Mihaly Posfai (University of Pannonia) and Rafal Dunin-Borkowski (Technical University of Denmark) Extraterrestrial magnetism Benjamin Weiss (MIT) and Pierre Rochette (CEREGE) Sedimentary magnetism Lisa Tauxe (University of California–San Diego) Volume 5, Number 5 (October 2009) GOLD GUEST EDITORS: Robert Hough and Charles Butt (CSIRO Exploration and Mining, Australia) Gold fascinates researchers in many sciences. As well as being attractive as a precious metal, gold has important physical and electrical properties that cause it to be an ’advanced material’ for manufacturing and drug delivery in medical science. Geologically, gold can be transported in solution in ambient- as well as high-temperature fl uids, and its mineralogy, composition and crystallography are often used to decipher and interpret the genesis of different gold-bearing ore systems. Because gold is a metal, its study requires a detailed understanding of metallography. FROM THE EDITORS Thematic Topics in 2009 Finally, nano crystals of gold and its alloys display unique properties, and these products are fi nding widespread application in manufacturing and are also seen in the natural environment. This issue of <strong>Elements</strong> describes new observations about a metal that has fascinated humans since early times. Current research spans the fi elds of geochemistry, crystallography, and metallurgy, and includes novel studies in the materials sciences. New developments in the geology of gold deposits Dick Tosdal (University of British Columbia) Gold in solution Anthony Williams-Jones (McGill University) Mineralogy, crystallography and metallography of gold Rob Hough, Charles Butt (CSIRO Australia); Joerg Fischer Buhner (Lego Gp, Italy) The biogeochemistry of gold Gordon Southam (University of British Columbia) Gold and nanotechnology Younan Xia (Washington State University) Volume 5, Number 6 (December 2009) LOW-TEMPERATURE METAL STABLE ISOTOPE GEOCHEMISTRY GUEST EDITOR: Thomas D. Bullen (U.S. Geological Survey) During the past decade it has been recognized that the stable isotope compositions of several metallic elements vary signifi cantly in nature due to both biotic and abiotic processing. While this leap in our understanding has been fueled by recent advances in instrumentation and techniques in both thermal ionization and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, the fi eld of metal stable isotope geochemistry has fi nally moved beyond a focus on development of analytical techniques and toward using the isotopes as source and process tracers in natural and experimental systems. Often termed the “non-traditional stable isotopes,” metal stable isotope systems have found wide application in the geological, hydrological, and environmental research realms and are enjoying a rapidly expanding presence in the scientifi c literature. This issue of <strong>Elements</strong> will focus on several intriguing aspects of low-temperature metal stable isotope geochemistry. Reconciling predicted and observed metal isotope fractionations Edwin Schauble, Pamela Hill, and Merlin Meheut (UCLA) Mass-dependent and mass-independent isotope fractionation of Hg: Implications for understanding Hg cycling in ecosystems Bridget A. Bergquist (University of Toronto) and Joel D. Blum (University of Michigan) Multi-tracer approaches for understanding paleo-redox conditions Ariel Anbar (Arizona State University), Silke Severmann (University of California-Riverside), and Gwyneth Gordon (Arizona State University) Cation cycling processes at local to global scales Albert Galy (University of Cambridge), Jérôme Gaillardet (University of Paris, France), and Edward Tipper (ETH Zurich) Forensic and biomedical applications of metal stable isotopes Thomas Bullen (U.S. Geological Survey), Thomas Walczyk (University of Singapore), and Thomas Johnson (University of Illinois/Urbana-Champaign) The metal stable isotope biogeochemistry of higher plants Friedhelm von Blanckenburg (GFZ-Potsdam), Dominik Weiss (Imperial College London), Monica Gulke (University of Hannover), and Thomas Bullen (U.S. Geological Survey) ELEMENTS 366 DECEMBER 2008
ET ALII This past winter, I was invited by one of our undergraduates to participate in a student government symposium on scientifi c integrity. I joined colleagues from natural science departments on a panel to discuss scientifi c integrity and take questions from students. To my surprise, most of the discussion was about lab reports. The students do the laboratory exercises as a team but write separate reports. They are graded as individuals. The concern was about how to evaluate the work of an individual in the collective effort. The physics department had the ultimate weapon, a computer algorithm that compares all laboratory reports, past and present, sniffi ng out any evidence of plagiarism. Still, some students, several percent, take their chance, copy old reports, and test the power of the algorithm. When the evening ended, I thought that we had become part of the problem. Rather than focusing on how lab reports are graded, we had missed the perfect opportunity to discuss the role of teamwork and collaboration in modern science. Collaborations consisting of large, multidisciplinary teams of scientists and engineers have become a hallmark of modern science. Complex scientifi c problems, such as the causes and impacts of climate change, require teams that can bring a wide variety of skills, experience, and perspectives to bear on these grand issues. Increasingly, funding agencies stimulate these collaborations with investments in centers and institutes rather than in individual principal investigators. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called on over 1200 lead and contributing authors over six years to create their three-volume 4 th assessment report. The IPCC is, perhaps, an unusual example, but the trend towards increased collaboration is science-wide and most evident in “big” science. A single paper describing the ATLAS detector for the Large Hadron Collider at CERN weighed in at 3522 authors (13 pages were required to list all of the authors). Other joint efforts, such as the sequencing of genomes, require hundreds of authors: 468 for the mouse (Nature, 2002, 420: 520-560) and 338 for rice (Science, 2002, 296: 79-92). Large-scale medical trials, galactic-scale surveys, and planetary exploration typically require from 50 to 900 authors. Based on ISI statistics (see ScienceWatch, 2004, July/August), there was a steep increase in the early 1990s in the number of papers in the physical sciences with fi fty to one hundred authors. In 1990, the mean number of authors was 2.6, and in 2003, it was 3.6. During that same period the number of single-author papers declined from 38% to 25%. Nature reports that during the fi rst nine months of 2008, there were only six single-author papers among some 700 reports (Nature, 455: 720-723). On a smaller scale are papers with fewer than 50 authors, and for these papers one might imagine that all of the authors have at least met. In TRIPLE POINT How many authors does it take to write a paper? the geosciences, the number of authors is usually at this scale: 52 for deep-sea ocean drilling (Science, 2006, 312: 1016-1020) and 33 for water on Mars (Science, 2007, 317: 1706-1709), to give just two examples. What is one to make of the growing number of authors on each paper? How many authors does it take to write a paper? What “credit” should each receive from the collective effort? On the positive side of the ledger, which greatly outweighs the negative, this trend represents the best effort of scientists grappling with increasingly complex problems that require the collective skills of many. With the proliferation of advanced analytical techniques and increasingly sophisticated computational methods, it is the exceptional scientist who has all of the equipment or intellectual skills required to address even relatively “small” scientifi c questions. There are, however, negatives, such as the ill-named concept of “honorary” authorship (there is no honor in honorary authorship) and the diffi culty of determining responsibility for error, as well as success. This leaves institutions struggling with the apportionment of “credit” as they conduct their annual reviews—the same problem that professors had in grading laboratory reports. Universities quantify and confuse, using algorithms that count citations, and they apportion credit based on the number of authors (fewer is better) and position in the sequence of authors (fi rst, second, and last seem to be preferred; see Science, 2008, 322: 371). I have even listened to a vice-president for research encourage junior faculty to enter into collaborative, high-risk, multidisciplinary research, with the serious assurance that their individual contributions can be extracted from the whole at the time of the tenure decision. This dissection of teamwork into individual contributions is the antithesis of a good team-building philosophy. In parallel with the growth in team science, we need new rules and measures of success. Here sports provide guidance. Red Auerbach, with his victory cigar, led the Boston Celtics to nine NBA championships as a coach and seven more as general manager and team president. He changed modern basketball by emphasizing team play over the accomplishments of the individual. At a moment when the great center Bill Russell was struggling on court, Auerbach promised him that at the end of the year, during contract negotiations, Auerbach would not count the number of goals scored by Russell, but rather the number of games won by the Celtics. The rest is history. Bill Russell became one of the game’s greatest defensive players (21,620 rebounds) but also scored 14,522 career points. Russell finished his career with 11 NBA championships. Wilt Chamberlain, Russell’s long-time rival, scored 31,419 points (4 th all-time record), but had only two NBA championships. Teamwork prevailed over individual talent. Universities and professional societies with their individual awards and medals are not well suited for recognizing good team science. Individual scientists are rarely credited for their team’s success, only their individual contributions. Academic mentors caution against too much collaboration prior to the tenure decision. From a scientist’s earliest days as a student writing a laboratory report until tenure, the system discourages collaboration. There must be a better way. Rather than insisting on separate laboratory reports, the evening’s discussion of scientifi c integrity might have been an opportunity to discuss the obligations and benefi ts of being a team member (see “Group Theory,” Nature, 2008, 455: 720-723). The students could have grappled with the common problem of the “weak” team member, and they could have argued over the sequence of authors on the lab report. Such discussion would inform our own perspectives of what it means to be a coauthor. Some journals, like Nature, require a clear statement of the contribution of each author as part of the publication process. This is a fi rst step, but a step still focused on the individual contribution—not the impact or importance of the team. ELEMENTS 367 DECEMBER 2008 Rod Ewing University of Michigan (rodewing@umich.edu)
Page 1 and 2: December 2008 Volume 4, Number 6 IS
Page 3 and 4: Elements is published jointly by th
Page 5 and 6: PRINCIPAL EDITORS E. BRUCE WATSON,
Page 7: Volume 5, Number 1 (February 2009)
Page 11 and 12: ADVERTISING
Page 13 and 14: Benny K. G. Theng is a research ass

Nanogeoscience - Elements

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?