PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND PRACTICES - COLUMN 163
this. However, the link between sam- pling and taxonomic richness is poorly understood, and there has been much debate on the equivalence and relevance of proxies.”
The reason for bringing Walker, F.M., et al.’s paper to your attention is not to get into the details of fossil sampling. It is to point out sampling issues in another geoscience area. I’d appreciate receiv- ing examples of other types of sampling reliability issues. It is a geoscience-wide issue.
Figure 2 - Median annual salaries of geoscience occupations
ing from home 2 to 3 days per week, if required. KC is paid an hourly rate and receives no benefits. KC’s colleague JM, who is an equally experienced and educated geologist, works full time for the same company, receives a salary and benefits (medical, retirement, sick leave, and vacation time). JM also believes that the job cannot be done efficiently on a part-time basis, as JM personally struggles to keep on top of the deliver- ables while working full time and regu- larly working on what would normally be days off.
Discussion: What are the genders of KC and JM? Does it matter? The focus of the situation is not on the gender difference or the fact that one is the primary parent of an infant. The focus is on the difference between full-time and part-time employment. The fact that the full-time employee feels the job requires regular overtime work contrasts with the fact that the part-time employee is not engaging in that much overtime work also relevant. Inquiry into this situation first requires an examination of the types of assignments each of the two geologists have. Are they the same or how do they differ? Is one geologist more time efficient and able to complete assignments faster. Is the quality of work the same for both?
Assume that both geologists work effi- ciently and competently and that the dif- ferences between them reflect the time required for the assignments they are given. Now the focus can examine their compensation and its comparability. Comparing the hourly rate each receives is not a full measure of equity because the salaried employee receives benefits while the part-time employee does not. The cost of comparable medical insur- ance should be part of the comparison. But should this comparison be on the basis of hours worked? Because the part- time employee is working fewer hours,
40 TPG •
Jul.Aug.Sep 2017
the cost of comparable health insurance will be higher on a per-hour basis. The part-time employee is paid by the hour at a fixed rate. The salaried employee’s hourly rate varies depending on the hours of overtime worked in a year. How should the difference between paid vaca- tion and sick leave be accounted for? It is clear that determining pay equality is difficult and problematic. But the issue is worth discussing. Your comments are welcomed.
Sampling Bias
The subject of sampling bias has been discussed in several of these col- umns (112 (Nov '07), 114 (Mar '08), 121 (May '09), 145 (May '13), and 160 (Oct '16) and in articles, Assuring the reliability of your sampling results by me (Nov '07), Data/results reliability by Martin Andrejko (Jan '08), and Is that data point really an outlier? by William Stone (Jan '14). While the focus of these discussions has primarily focused on chemical analyses, the general concept of demonstrating the reliability of your sampling results applies to all types of sampling (Abbott, 2017, Geoscience honesty—avoiding the misuse of models: Mining Geology blog, www.mininggeolo-
gyhq.com/geoscience-honesty, available in PDF format). An excellent discussion of sampling bias problems in the fossil record was published (Walker, F.M., et al., 2017, Assessing sampling of the fossil record in a geographically and stratigraphically constrained dataset: the Chalk Group of Hampshire, southern UK: Journal of the Geological Society, v. 174, p. 509-521; open access available,
https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2016-093). The opening sentence of the abstract highlights the issue, “Taphonomic, geo- logical and sampling processes have been cited as biasing richness measure- ments in the fossil record, and sampling proxies have been widely used to assess
Geologists and Regulatory Compliance
Jan Horbaczewski’s (CPG-9369) article, “Geologists and Regulatory Compliance,” in the Jan/Feb/Mar '17 TPG is excellent and should be read by all geoscientists. Although Horbaczewski writes from an environmental perspec- tive, his remarks apply to all interactions with regulators. I’ve been on both sides of the issue having spent 21 years as a geologist with the US Securities and Exchange Commission helping natural resource companies comply with the securities laws. More recently, I’ve been a consultant helping clients comply with securities regulators and have spent a good deal of time in the last year working on proposed changes to the SEC’s and SME’s disclosure guidelines. Regulators have a job to do. Understanding what the regulatory goals are and working to comply with them will smooth the process for both sides.
De-licensure of Geologists
Ann Pattison’s Letter to the Editor, “More on De-licensure,” in the Jan/ Feb/Mar '17 TPG ponders the issue of national geoscience licensing and addresses two critical issues, buy-in from the states and enforceability. My discussion of “De-licensure of geolo- gists” in column 162 in the Jan/Feb/ Mar '17 TPG addresses aspects of both issues and includes some international enforcement information. Given that other professions like engineering and medicine are regulated by the states rather than nationally, I believe it highly unlikely that the states will give yield to a national license for geoscientists. AIPG certification is about as good as there is currently. However, the new Nationally Licensed Geologist (NLG) title autho- rized by the Executive Committee this year is a step in this direction. Adam Heft and Doug Bartlett will be present- ing on the NLG at the Nashville meeting in September. More discussion will occur in the future.
www.aipg.org
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
