CHART Workshop 2009: Week 5 Summary
Filed under: CHART Weekly Summaries,Discovery,US Science Support Program
Dear Colleagues:
The CHART workshop has been extended and will end on March 13th. Last week we had lots of great discussion, but we also want to encourage those of you that haven’t contributed to do so now. If you think ocean drilling is important, please show your support by helping to shape and focus the future of IODP.
Last week, we opened up discussion on a question posted by Andy Fisher regarding how the new science plan for post-2013 drilling should be organized. We got some response, but need more. We need to think about how themes and initiatives should be organized and whether and how we should prioritize science questions in the new science plan. If you have an opinion, post your thoughts on the “Strategies” board.
with thanks,
Christina Ravelo
on behalf of the CHART steering committee
———
Here are highlights of last week’s postings and some new questions.
Emerging Fields and Cross-Cutting Disciplines: Discussions in the Emerging Fields and New Cross-Cutting Disciplines have resulted in nearly 90 posts. These topics propose new geographic regions to study, areas/themes with a dearth of IODP data, new-to-IODP fields, and potential expanded partnerships. How should these discussions be posed/grouped for INVEST? Are there scientific themes that combine some topics? What are the new scientific initiatives we should propose? What are the important engineering developments, technologies, and methods needed to achieve them?
Solid Earth Cycles and Geodynamics: This week we had 21 new posts, including some on carbon sequestration in peridotites, volcanic and non-volcanic rifted margins, understanding deep mantle geodynamics, and developing a SAFOD type borehole experiment to determine the strength of faults in ocean crust. There were also two new discussion topics created, one on Continental Breakup and the Formation of New Oceans and the other on Arc Evolution.
Environmental Change, Processes and Effects: This week, several new lines of discussion appeared, including the need to understand low-latitude processes using records in prime, high resolution settings and Mission Specific Platform expeditions, and the importance of investigating continental-ocean climate linkages using deep sea fan and other margin targets. Contrasting opinions about the need to focus on basic science while also posing questions of societal relevance have been expressed. This week, a new question has been posed regarding how the new science plan should highlight emerging questions. Should there still be a discrete theme on Environmental Change, Processes and Effects in the new science plan? Or should questions in Environmental Change be better integrated with other science themes?
Deep Biosphere and Sub-seafloor Ocean: New posts include the need for in situ incubation as the key to collecting and identifying microbiological communities within the crust. It was suggested that observatories should be the focus of future IODP work for the deep biosphere, and that better support technology and instrument development is required. There is a need for understanding the relationship between gas hydrates and microbiology, the role of fluid flow in geochemical cycles, and role of fluid pressure in hazard generation potential. A remaining question is, should microbiology and deep biosphere studies be more of a priority for IODP? Drilling is essential to the study the deep biosphere, and IODP could potentially engage many new students and junior geomicrobiologists.
Strategies: There is broad consensus that outreach and education should be stronger in order to get new scientists involved in IODP. On the topic of proposal reviews, there was support for IODP identifying some complex or technically challenging projects early on and making a commitment to following through on these. There was continued discussion of linking drilling and site survey and other “auxiliary” proposals, rather than letting them remain disconnected. On the question of how the new IODP science plan be organized, there was support for highlighting genuinely “new” science, either by topic or region, and for focusing on topics that would be perceived to be especially relevant to society. The question that remains is: If and how should the program identify priorities within the new Science Plan?
General Discussion Board: This board has seen renewed activity as participants of IODP expeditions have been providing their viewpoints on the past successes of IODP and on the aspects that have not worked. For example, last week, there were posts on accomplishments in sea level studies, hydrates, hot spots and mantle plumes, formation of ocean crust. There were also posts pointing out that IODP/ODP have not done an adequate job on outreach, and that even with our past successes, we need to focus on fresh problems and new regions. Are there other ways in which you think IODP has been a success? Are there additional ways in which it hasn’t worked well?
