PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND PRACTICES - COLUMN 177 Continued from p. 35
of issues that require ethical consid- eration.”3 Those promoting geoethics apparently take pains to avoid learning about the many ways the extractive industries professional societies address the environmental and social licensing aspects of their activities. My paper, “Natural resources and sustainability: geoethics fundamentals and reality,” in TPG addresses this issue, in particular society’s demand for natural resources and depletability of natural resource occurrences.
ASBOG to move to computer-based testing
Becky L. Johnson, Chair of the Texas Board of Professional Geologists, reported that ASBOG will be moving to computer-based testing in the TBPG Newsletter – Winter 2021. This will allow for multiple testing sites around the country. Going to computer-based testing will not affect the content of the exams or application and qualification requirements of the ASBOG-member states. The earliest likely deployment of electronic testing will be the Spring 2022 test. Johnson also announced that ASBOG will conduct a new task analysis in 2022 (the last was done in 2015). The task analysis is based the results of a survey of ASBOG-licensed geoscientists asking about what subjects they need to know and what sorts of tasks they spend time on. I commented on biases favoring hydrological, environmental, and engi- neering geoscience practice inherent in in the topic, “Is the basis for the ASBOG Exam’s Questions Unethical?” Column 99 created quite a stir for a variety of reasons including an effort to address some of this bias; see columns 104 (Jul/
As reported in column 104, I was invited to participate in one of ASBOG’s semi-annual Council of Examiners meet- ings that reviews the most recently given test and the questions proposed for the next test. This review involves “taking” either the most recent Fundamentals or Practice exam and evaluating the answers provided. I’m an economic geolo- gist focusing on the classification of mineral resources and mineral reserves and how a particular deposit fits into the classification system. Nevertheless, hav- ing gone in completely cold, I would have
passed the Practice exam by applying basic geoscience principles, had I taken it for real. In column 106 I reported on the examination experiences of others who had taken the ASBOG tests with and without the benefit of review courses. Stephanie Jarvis’ (SA-1495) Student’s Voice column, “Whew!”, describes her experience in taking the Fundamentals exam with limited, rushed, and at least somewhat sleep-deprived preparation.
Moving the ASBOG exams to comput- er-based testing with many sites around the country is a much-needed improve- ment. Most of Wyoming’s PGs live in other states, about half in Colorado. Having a testing site in the metro Denver area would be welcomed. Will computer- based testing require going to a site with a computer lab rather than being able to use your home computer? Would allow- ing one to use one’s own computer be cheating or would the exam be more of the open-book variety? Some interesting questions. If someone has ideas on these questions, I would love to pass them on in future columns.
The potential for geoscience specialty bias in the exams continues to exist, particularly for those states that rigor- ously require anyone doing any type of geoscience to be licensed. There are a few folks specializing in narrow fields like mineralogy, optical petrology, archio- cyathids, graptolites, geostatistics, etc. out there. Does a state have provisions for licensing or exempting these special- ties? The fact that many ASBOG states having a significant percentage of natu- ral resource geoscientists exempt them from licensing is another factor in the licensing debate and potential source of exam bias. The PE&P Index.xlsx file on the AIPG web site lists over 30 columns and articles addressing licensing issues over the years.
Field work during the COVID-19 pandemic
A couple of articles in the Jan/Feb/Mar
TPG address issues involved with doing field work during the COVOD- 19 Pandemic. The paper, “Learning in the outdoors: field-based undergrad- uate education during the Covid-19 Pandemic,” by Jon Rotzien, et al. addressed the issues of providing stu- dents with a field camp in 2020. As they state, “The fundamental skills that stu- dents learn throughout the coursework
of an undergraduate geology program also require time studying rocks and the natural world in the great outdoors, the more the better. This educational path- way typically culminates in a focused and sustained five- to six-week-long geo- logic mapping course that completes the geology Bachelor’s degree requirements of most universities.” The importance of field camp has been addressed many times in this column. There are 23 refer- ences to field camp in the PE&P index.xls to this column along with 27 references to field work (there are some duplicates). Rotzien, et al. describe their hybrid field camp that is divided into 14-online- course days immediately preceding a 15-day in-person field camp. Rotzien, et al. conclude, “….we feel that more camps may go to this hybrid model, since it is a nice compromise and represents about the length of time a camp can run at full throttle without testing the ultimate limits of the participants’ durability and endurance.”
Raphael Ketani’s, CPG-9003,letter to the editor in this issue comments on some of Rotzien, et al.’s suggested prac- tices suggesting that not all may have been necessary and may have unneces- sarily contributed to the anxiety and stress of participants. Because one hopes that future field camps will not occur during a pandemic—although camps in 2021 may well have many of the same characteristics—some of the practices Ketani commented on may not be rel- evant. However, both Rotzien, et al. and Ketani address issues related to safety practices. What are considered appro- priately safe practices are changing and should be reflected on. I spent a good part of two years as a field tech conducting solo magnetometer or electromagnetic surveys over some pretty rough terrain. Had I fallen and broken a leg or suffered a severe sprain, it would have likely been 12+ hours before help arrived. Even had cell phones been available then—they weren’t—it is likely I would have been in a place with no service. Having another person along would have increased the cost of the surveys but should be current safety practice.
Issac Pope’s, SA-9950, “Coping with COVID: lessons from my undergradu- ate fieldwork during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” addressed problems affect- ing an individual’s field work, which are different from those faced by a field
3. Bohle, Martin, and DiCapua, Giuseppe, 2019, Setting the scene in Bohle, M., ed., Exploring geoethics: ethical implications, social contexts, and professional obligations of the geosciences: Palgrave Pivot, Cham, XIV + 214, ISBN 978-3-03012009-2, p. 1–24.
www.aipg.org Apr.May.Jun 2021 • TPG 37
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
