earth-day.doc

Today, on New Horizons in Education, we celebrate Earth Day with a leading researcher in the geosciences, Walt Sneijder. The earth science exploratorium(探索博物馆) will be a place where people could come in an interactive way, begin to understand earth processes. Water is one of the most pressing problems we have in the west. Certainly you need to bring the environmental groups to the same table as agencies, or other interest groups, the ranchers, the farmers.Hi, Im Bob Custer, President of Boise State University. Welcome to New Horizons in Education. Today is the 35th anniversary of the founding of Earth Day, so it is fitting that we have an earth scientist on todays program. Walter Sneijder is the director of the environmental science and public policy research institue at Boise State University, and the director of geosciences research at BSU. He also has the incoming cheer of the Geological Society of Americas Geology and Public Policy Committee. Walt first joined Boise State in 1984, and returned to the university last January after a two-and-half year appointment with the National Science Foundation in Washington D.C. While at NSF(美国国家科学基金会), Walt had the opportunity to work with a larger geoscience community, and help them craft new directions in geoscience research and education. He now brings that experience back to Boise State. Walter earned a PhD in geology from Stanford university. He has a long and distinguished record as an educator, scientist and coalition builder. Walt, welcome to New Horizons in Education. Oh, thank you, Bob. Im glad to be here. Well, lets start right off with the whole concept of Earth Day. It was founded back in 1970 as a way to draw attention to environmental issues. How would you, as a scientist, characterize our progress, in addressing these issues over the last 35 years? Well, I think, the key to the progress has been our increasing effectiveness of collaborative approaches to solving environmental problems. And its one of those things where its easy to talk about collaboration much more difficult to actually carry it off(处理), but its important to think, underlying, note of all this collaboration, is that its we as people living with this earth, have to take responsibility for our actions, and for the fact that indeed we live with the Earth, and not on the Earth, but its only gonna be, I think, through increased public awareness, increased true collaborative approaches that will make some good advances.Whos involved in the collaborations? I mean, what makes these collaborations work? Are you talking about folks at the opposite end of the environmental spectrum(范围)? The arch-enemies of each other? Are you talking about government versus, those in the private sector? Who are the collaborators here?The collaboratives are full spectrum of people you just mentioned. It can be a mix of all of those, it can be just a mix between a scientist and someone who is a state federal agency. Certainly, you need to bring the environmental groups to the same table as the agencies, or other interest groups, the ranchers, the farmers, and so you can get them engaged in a dialogue, and begin of the dialogue that begins in a collaborative process. Having the right information is certainly one of the keys to trying to decide at that intersection of science and policy making, when you have enough information or when you have enough research to make a good policy decision. Could you explain this as a scientist how you think that works? You gotta start with realizing that science runs on data, and you have to have good-quality data and enough ovit(对象) so that you can make reasonable interpretations. The scientist then makes those interpretations. From those interpretations, then the policy makers sometimes have to make very difficult decisions. You have to understand that the key is for us to understand how the Earth works, understand the Earth processes. And you cannot say I now understand them. All you can really say is I understand it to this degree at this point. Hand that over to policy makers, and they have to make some difficult decisions. Science is inherently uncertain. And making decisions in face of uncertainties is something that all the policymakers are facing, and continue to face. So at some point, policy makers really have to bite the bullet, and say, All right. Enough is enough. Were never gonna get perfect data. Were never gonna get a perfect set of data. We re gonna have to make a decision here, and your point is, thats where you make the draw. Whats one additional part, I agree. Its both one additional part. Additional part is that those same people have to be willing to revisit that decision if down the road, additional research gives a different picture of what the outcome might be, so they have to be able to make a definitive decision, but then have the courage to revisit that decision. When you go to national meetings, and you get into these discussions, say, in the area of geoscience. I guess one of the questions that I would simplifiy, oversimplify by asking is: Whose science is this anyway? In other words, is there at a national meeting of geoscientist, a consensus that builds where at the end of the meeting youre gonna be all marching out of there and say, Yes, global warming is a problem. Or, do you walk away from meetings like that truely understanding how scientist dont even know how to come together on a particular solution to a problem? Well, first of all, you have to remember that scientists are humans. They are individuals. And one of the big challenges for any scientist is to separate the science from your values of what that science may mean in terms of some sort of environmental issue, but we do, as a science community, gradually work towards a consensus position that doesnt mean unanimous, that doesnt mean necessarily definitive, that doesnt mean that down the road a startling new discoverys gonna make this. would break that consensus, but climate change is a good example. There is broad consensus that were into a global warming period. Its there are some dissenters in that. The problem with that one is, in terms of the data, is, what will the future climates look like? What are the air bars on our predictions? But there is broad consensus that is not unanimous, and we do need to continue to work on those problems. Are the dissenters dissentting over the fact that there is a climate change underway, or dissentting over whats causing the climate change. It can be a little of both and let me explain that. Certainly, there is what is causing it, if it is not really been driven by human interactions with the Earth, then that spells different consequences for what the policy maker should do. However, I think one of the big problems we have with this particular issue of climate change is that the data that we have for doesnt go back far enough in time to allow us to get our hands all around those processes that drive climate change. We spent most of our research dollars on modern climate, say, tracking climate historically through the last few hundred years, and additional a large number of research dollars where you go back couple of hundred thousands years, maybe millions of year, like drilling the ice gorge in Greenland, court from the oceans, etc. and so forth. And both those give very very definite prospectives but in fact, this is really exciting, because there is a whole new community thats just now emerging that has identified processes in the deep-time Earth record, that suggests we need that perspective in order to understand why climate is changed now, but more importantly, what might happen in the 20-to-200 period. How drastic might it be or might not it be? Help us poor old non-scientist out here. What does that mean to say, the deep-time earth record? Deep time for, is anything thats older than _arbitrary limit two million years or older. Is this where your faculty for example, gets into geoinformatics? Absolutely, I mean, it goes back to the point making that science runs on data, geoinformatics really is a digital information system for the geosciences in general. And we are actually pressing towards a new era in science where data is more commonly held and commonly shared, and so one of the efforts now, in particulare with this climate research, this deep-time_ climate research is from the beginning, established a community data base so people can worry about the science, and interpreting the science rather than playing with data. In a way, what you are saying is, that if we can use this system of geoinformatics and share data, scientists themselves will have a better opportunity to create a consensus among themselves. With better data, comes better decision-making down the road, and better solutions. Absolutely, absolutely, youre democratizing science too. You are freeing up so that Walter Sneijder can no longer hoard data at Boise State University that somebody at another university can get out it who may have a brighter mind, and really push forward with a new breakthrough, so yes, its very important. And I assume this then would also deal with the problem of what I guess, you call, advocacy science, My data versus your data, my scientist is better than your scientist. If you can build this data set that is agreed upon, and is common to a large body of science and scientist, then I assume youre less likely, or youre going to be able to deal with those advocacy scientists out there who are taking a point of view and not necessarily basing it on the largest data set you can find. 在今天的新视野教育节目里，我们将和大家一起庆祝地球日。陪同我们的还有沃特 斯内德，他是地球科学领域研究的领军者。“人们可以在地球科学探索博物馆通过一种互动的方式来了解地球演变过程。”“水资源问题是我们西方最为紧迫的问题之一。”“当然了，我们得把与环境有关的各方面集团组织起来，比方说政府机构或者其他利益集团、牧场主还有农场主。 大家好，我是鲍勃 卡斯特，博伊西州立大学校长。欢迎收听新视野教育节目。今天正值地球日创办35周年，所以我们今天的节目也应该有一位地球学家。沃特 斯内德是博伊西州立大学环境科学与公共政策研究学院的院长，也是本大学的地球科学研究主管。他也是美国地质地理协会与公共政策委员会的津贴获得者。沃特1984年开始在博伊西州立大学大学任职。他也曾在华盛顿特区的美国国家科学基金会(NSF)任职两年半，去年一月结束了这一份工作之后又回到了博伊西州立大学。在NSF任职期间，沃特有机会与更多的地质科学工作者一同工作，引导他们找到地球科学研究与教育的新方向。现在，他将自己的经验带回了博伊西州立大学。沃特在斯坦福大学取得了自己的地质学博士学位。他是一位教育家、科学家、同盟建立者。他的工作历史悠久，成绩斐然。沃特，欢迎你来到新视野教育节目。 谢谢你，鲍勃。很高兴来到这里。 那么，我们还是从地球日的概念讲起吧。地球日是1970年创办的，是为了吸引人们关心环境问题。你作为一个科学家，你如何看待这35年来我们解决这些问题取得的进步？ 我觉得，我们取得进步的关键就在于我们通过合作解决问题的效率越来越高了。合作，说起来容易，做起来真得挺难。注重合作真的很重要。我们人类与地球共生，而不仅仅是在地球上生存，就一定要为自己的行为负责。要想在环境方面取得进展，就必须提高公众的环保意识，增加合作途径。 都有谁来参加这些合作呢？我的意思是，这些合作是如何发挥作用的？你说的是环保问题方面的对立者和死敌吗？你说的是政府和私营企业吗？参与合作的人都有谁呢？ 合作者包括你刚才提到的所有领域的人。可能是多个领域的人，也可能只是科学家和政府人员。当然了，我们得把与环境有关的各方面集团组织起来，比方说政府机构或者其他利益集团、牧场主还有农场主，这样就可以让他们通过对话来开始进行合作。 获得准确的信息当然是科学与决策方面的关键。如果有足够的信息和调研，才能做出正确的决策。作为科学家，你能为我们解释一下这一过程吗？ 你必须知道，科学是通过数据来进行研究的。必须要有高质量的数据和研究对象，才能做出合理的解释。然后科学家给出这样的解释。通过这些解释，决策者要做出艰难的抉择。你必须知道，这一关键信息帮助我们了解地球事物的运作过程。你还不能说我了解地球上事物的运作过程了，你只能说当前我理解到了这个层面。把自己的理解告诉决策者，然后他们要做出艰难的抉择。科学总是无法确定的。面对不确定因素做出决策就是决策者的事情了。这件事他们要一直做下去。 所以，决策者就必须硬着头皮，说：“好吧，够了。我们永远不会有完全正确的数据，我们现在必须做出决定。”你的观点就是，这里就要碰运气了。 这是题外话了。不过，这个题外话也是说，这些决策者在以后要重新考虑自己的决定。另外其他研究也会对结果给出不同的预测，所以决策者有条件做出权威的决定，但是他们也要有魄力在以后重新思考自己的决定。 你去参加全国会议的时候，你可能会讨论一些问题，比如说地球科学领域的问题。我想，其中一个我想问的问题简化一下可能是这样的：这是谁的科学？换句话说，在全国地球科学大会上，你们在会议结束时能否达成一致意见；大家一起走出会堂，说：“嗯，全球变暖是个问题。”还是你们离开大会是大家还不能达成一致，不理解科学家们为何不懂如何才能在某个问题上团结起来，解决问题。 嗯，首先，你要记住，科学家也是人。他们也是单独的个体。所有科学家都面临的一个巨大挑战就是，客观看待科学；科学对于环境问题的意义，自己可能会有看法，要将自己的看法与科学本身区别对待。但是我们科学团体会向一致认可的方向努力，这并不是说大家都会认可，也不是说肯定是权威结果，也并不意味着以后令人惊奇的新发现会影响大家的共同看法。气候变化就是个好例子。大家广泛认同我们正在步入气候变暖的时期。对此也有反对之声。就数据而言，这里的问题就在于，未来的气候会变成什么样？我们预测的空气标准是什么？这里我们有不尽相同的一致意见，就是我们确实需要对这些问题做点什么。 这些人是反对气候变化的事实呢？还是反对气候变化的原因呢？ 两方面都有一些，容我解释一下。当然了，有一部分是原因。如果反对这一点，不是因为人类在地球上活动利益的驱使，就是经过决策者影响的各种结果。然而，对于这一问题，我们的差池就在于，我们手里没有很久很久以前的数据，就无法了解所有促使气候改变的原因。我们的研究成本，大多数都花在现代气候上，气候数据只有几百年时间之久。还有很多的研究成本花在研究几十万年甚至几百万年前的气候上了，比如我们会深入到格陵兰的冰谷或者海洋底部去，等等等等。通过这些都可以得到确定的观点；实际上，这也很让人兴奋，有一个刚刚出现的全新的科学团体，已经确定，借助远古时期的地球记录，可以理解我们如今气候变化的原因；更为重要的是，可以帮助我们预测20至200年内，气候变化的剧烈程度将会如何。 提示一下我们这种老文盲，远古时期的地球记录是什么意思？ 远古就是说两百万年以前甚至更早的时候发生的事情。 你手下的团队就是从地质信息数据库这样的地方取得的地质信息吗？ 当然了，我是说，又回到之前提过的一点了，科学要基于数据。地质信息数据库是宏观地球科学的一个数码信息系统。我们正在步入一个科学的新纪元，数据可以保存下来，还可以被分享，所以我们现在的研究，尤其是对于这个远古地球气候的研究，从一开始就建立了一个数据库，科学家就可以专心于科学研究，不用为数据担心。 从某种程度上来说，你的意思就是，如果我们有这种地质信息数据库，从中共享数据，科学家们就可以更好的达成一致；拥有更好的数据，未来就有更好的决策，问题也会解决得更好。 是的，是的，你也在推广科学。你使得沃特 斯内德不能把数据窝藏在博伊西州立大学，否则别的学校可能会有更聪明的人会取得突破性的进展。所以，是的，这很重要。 我认为这可能会解决你们称为科学推广的一个问题。我有我的数据，你有你的数据，我的科学家比你的优秀这类的问题。如果可以建立大家认可的数据库，而且很多科学领域都有涉及到，很多科学家都可以接触到，那么我想，如果有些科学家的观点较为片面，或者观点的数据基础不是大家普遍掌握的全面数据的话，这样的问题就可以得到解决了。