EDUCATOR’S CORNER


already exist, independent of its discoverers. If Madam Curie had not discovered radium, some other scientist would have, and radium would have the same characteristic properties in either case.


The remaining items (2 and 12) arise from the discipline of philosophy and the metadiscipline of the humanities, not from science. However, their understanding is indispensable to the practice of science as a profession, and AIPG stresses ethics perhaps more than does any other science organization. The two items enlist a different framework of reasoning (ethics) that rest on four concepts: justice (strive to treat every person with equal fairness), beneficence (do good for others), nonmaleficence (do no harm to others), and autonomy (respect the power of others to make life choices that don’t violate other ethical concepts). Informing the public and educating students are exercises of beneficence. In professional practice, the practitioner must consider the implications of all four concepts at once to make an informed ethical decision. Teaching the relevance of ethics in a general education science course promotes respecting the other ways of knowing of other metadisciplines that support the general education curricula. If we can teach that develop- ing ability to think and to respectfully learn from others is far more important than acquiring rote knowledge, then we have contributed greatly to our students achieving good educations.


Finally, an invitation: our database of 24,000 participants


includes some professors but no data from other practicing science professionals. Readers who take the SLCI online at https://tinyurl.com/SLCIAIPG will add a valuable dimension to this study. Completion should take about 30 minutes. You will


PE & P, continued from p. 43


for technology and markets! Talking about that is painful as well because it shows the severely limited range and depth of logic (if any) that goes into such mandates as deadlines for full movement away from fossil fuels.


Comments anyone?


Natural Resource Geology: Necessary or in Terminal Decline and “Dirty”?


Mike Simmons states that many UK students regard industrial or natural resource geology (mining and oil & gas) an industry in terminal decline and “dirty” and therefore not worth pursuing.4 While the idea that industrial geology is in terminal decline and “dirty” is more com- mon in Europe, it is certainly widely held in the US. One colleague reported that his daughter was thrown out of a class at American University for daring to suggest in class that mining necessarily supplies most of the basic material used by society.


There is a “magical” belief that recy-


cling and reuse will eliminate the need for newly extracted minerals. This belief is simply not true or realistic. While the lead in car batteries is (and has been for


of other minerals is difficult to impossible.


Consider the talc, diatomite, TiO2 (white pigment), and other minerals in paint, the talc in car dashboards, or the muscovite in the plastics in the engine compartment. Lithium, mostly used in lithium ion bat- teries, cannot be economically recycled as the cost is about 5 times the cost of new production from brines, although some Li-recycling plants are being built. As pointed out in the previous topic, the demand for natural gas will remain for many years.


decades) efficiently recycled and the iron and steel from crushed used cars and other sources are recycled, the demands for new production from lead and iron mines remains and many mines continue to operate. The average recycling rate for lead from 2011 through 2015 was 71% and for iron and steel was 55%.5 Similarly, the recycling rate for copper was 34% and aluminum was 64%. Construction aggregates make up more than 80% of the total aggregates market, which amounts to around 10 ton per capita per year. Around 80% of the aggregates use in asphalt is currently recycled.6 Recycling


The general public, and even most geoscientists fail to recognize all the mineral products we use. Glass, ceram- ics, abrasives, paint, wallboard, brick, tile, decorative stone, cosmetics, fertilizer (the P, phosphate, and K, potash compo- nents), kitty litter, and clays (including the kaolin that makes most papers white and take ink) are but a few of the indus- trial minerals that we all use on a regular basis. Mining has always been with us; think about all the flint and stone tools and the potsherds beloved by archeolo- gists. What is needed is education. How can you contribute?


4. Simmons, Mike, 2018, Speaking up for geoscience: Geoscientist, December 2018, p.9. 5. Recycling—metals [advance release]: USGS 2015 Minerals Yearbook, May 2017, 6 p. 6. Recycled aggregates—profitable resource conservation: USGS Fact Sheet FS-181-99, February 2000.


www.aipg.org Apr.May.Jun 2019 TPG 49


receive a report back that explains your score and your self- assessment accuracy. The Institutional Research Board (IRB) of Humboldt State University oversees our study, and your results will remain confidential. If you teach, upon request I will happily set up a separate class site (or sites) for your class(es) to take the SLCI and obtain measures of self-assessment accu- racy. Students will each receive back an individual report and instructors receive their class results in an Excel file.


References Cited


Chamberlin, Thomas C. (1897) “The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses.” Journal of Geology (5) 837-848. (Published version of Chamberlin’s original 1890 paper). Retrieved November 1, 2018, from http://www.accessexcel- lence.org/RC/AB/BC/chamberlin.html.


Nuhfer, Edward, Cogan, C., and Wright, D. (2018) Unpacking the ‘S’ and ‘T’ of STEM: Overlooked Conceptual Differences are Important (abstract). Proceedings of the Pacific Division of AAAS, 17(1) 99th Annual Meetings Program with Abstracts. p. 148.)


Richter, Frank M. (1986) Kelvin and the Age of the Earth, The Journal of Geology (94) 395-401.


Strahler, Arthur N. (1992) Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.


Wolpert, L. (1992). The Unnatural Nature of Science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.


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