PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND PRACTICES - COLUMN 156
or ‘should’ vs. vague, suggestive, aspi- rational, or equivocal wording—or concepts left out.” Tepel argues that protection of the public’s health, safety, and welfare should be clearly stated as a primacy clause at the beginning of a strong code of ethics. He notes that the various codes he examined ranged between those with strong pri- macy clauses, those with weak clauses, those with equivocal clauses, and those lacking such a clause. In Tepel’s view, “should” is indicative of a weak statement that is “suggestive and non- binding.”
Tepel’s examination of AIPG’s Code of Ethics missed the second and third sentences of the Preamble that states, “The Institute’s Code of Ethics com- prises three parts: the Canons, which are broad principles of conduct; the Ethical Standards, which are goals to which Members aspire; and the Rules of Conduct. Compliance with the Rules of Conduct is mandatory and violation of any Rule will be grounds for disciplinary action by the Institute.” I’ve added italics and bold face to highlight the structure of the Institute’s Code. The Rules of Conduct use “shall.” While the quoted sentences are not the explicit primacy clause Tepel was looking for, I like the Institute’s Code’s structure of principles, aspirational goals, and mandatory rules.
I encourage all AIPG members to consider the foregoing questions and suggest changes to the AIPG Code of Ethics. The AIPG Code of Ethics can be found at
www.aipg.org/about/ethics. htm. Download a copy, make your sug- gested changes (preferably in MS Word with “track changes” on) and send me your suggestions.
Disabled Geoscientists at Field Camp and Otherwise
reviewed comments on field camp and field training by Stephanie Jarvis, YP-0125, Kristina Portabib, SA-3410, and 2015 SEG President François Robert. The July 2015 issue of The Geoscientist contained some additional reflections on this subject.
George Jameson, in heralding a Geological Society of London (GSL) con- ference on “opening the gate to acces- sible fieldwork,” noted that while “Field experience is a crucial component in the professional practice of geology,” talented people with disabilities can be
deterred by the physical and psychologi- cal challenges presented by fieldwork. In her “In the field” column in the Apr/May/ TPG, Stephanie Jarvis noted that an increasing number of geoscien- tists, including students, spend little or no time in the field. Instead they work with data collected by others that has not yet been analyzed, at least not with the type of expertise these geoscientists have. I don’t know what the results of the GSL conference were. I do remember that when I was required to take gradu- ate field camp at the Colorado School of Mines, one of my fellow students, who had been disabled by a fall, was allowed to work on outcrops near the roads in the field area. His graduate work focused on micropaleontology and he went on to a career in the petroleum business. This is one example of accommodation for a physical disability.
The American Geosciences Institute adopted a Consensus Statement Regarding Access and Inclusion of Individuals Living with Disabilities in the Geosciences this past June. The AGI statement includes four specific points:
learning environments and inclusive curricula, including in the classroom, laboratory, and field that are condu- cive to developing the skills of geo- scientists of all physical, sensory, or cognitive abilities.
the retention of geoscientists who live with disabilities in academic commu- nities, our professional organizations, and the workforce.
- dents with disabilities to transition into geoscience careers that maximize their unique perspectives, competen- cies, and abilities.
that career and professional develop- ment opportunities are made avail- able to geoscientists with all abilities to support life-long growth, and by extension, promote inclusion and act as an example for other organizations.
The full AGI statement can be found
at
www.americangeosciences.org/com- munity/disability-consensus-statement. AIPG is among the signatories of this AGI statement.
Mike Harris, in an article, “Fieldwork and mining,” in the July 2015 Geoscientist,
https://www.geolsoc.org. uk/Geoscientist/Archive/July-2015/ Fieldwork-and-mining, notes that those
wishing to engage in mining exploration should possess “a passion for being in the field, working on or looking for ore. They must be tough in field, and enjoy it—and not be worried about less than balmy conditions—just appreciating the opportunity of being there. They must be able to get along with a range of people, often very different from themselves, and to cope with relatively high levels of responsibility early on.” Harris goes on to note that mining exploration often occurs in third world countries and other out-of-the way places. Being away from home for extended periods during field season is common. Harris suggests that having summer jobs at a mine or on an exploration team is an excellent way of determining if mining exploration is the field for you.
Clearly those with physical and other disabilities should consider the fieldwork expectations of the area(s) of geoscience they wish to pursue. Mining exploration may not be a good choice while petro- leum exploration may well be. There are a variety of career paths open to the disabled. However, an understanding of field relationships is critical to most areas. Computer models are useful but they are just models subject to revision and are only as good as the data den- sity (number) and coverage (distribution within the modeled volume) supporting them. It occurs to me that mini drones and other recent technologic develop- ments may provide an increasing array of accommodations for those unable to go to the field themselves.
Geoethics: The Role And Responsibility Of Geoscientists
Geoethics: the role and responsibility of geoscientists, Geological Society of London Special Publication 419, edited by S. Peppoloni and G. Di Capua, was published August 21, 2015. The articles in this volume cover a variety of topics, several of which address topics included in the 2015 AGI Guidelines discussed above. In particular, geohazard risk assessments and communication of these risk assessments to the public in various ways are addressed. The book’s contents include:
Cocco, M., et al., The L’Aquila trial3
Parkash, S., Cooperation, coordina- tion and team issues in disaster management: the need for a holis- tic and integrated approach
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