^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ AWG E-MAIL NEWS 2002-6 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONTENTS 1) AGI GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM SPECIAL UPDATE: 2-23-02 2) AGI GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM SPECIAL UPDATE: 2-21-02 3) AGI LAUNCHES WEB SITE PROVIDING FREE INFORMATION ON GEOSCIENCE CAREERS AND EMPLOYERS 4) AGI PLANNING FOR THE 2002 EARTH SCIENCE WEEK 5) REBUTTAL OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARD RESPONSE 6) CALL FOR US NOMINATIONS ON TECHNICAL/INDUSTRY OCEN DRILLING ADVISORY PANELS 7) WASHINGTON WIRE FEBRUARY 15, 2002 8) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GEOSCIENCE TEACHERS ANNOUNCES WORKSHOP FOR EARLY CAREER FACULTY IN GEOSCIENCES 9) COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT: WELL CUTTINGS WORKSHOP 10) MEMBER NEWS 11) NEW PUBLICATION 2001-112 NEW FROM WESTVIEW PRESS! PLATE TECTONICS 12) POSITION OPENINGS 2001-115 Colorado College Structural Geology 2002-004 Texas A&M University Petroleum Geosciences 2002-006 RCW Communication Design Research Position 2002-010 Texas A&M University Seismology 2002-015 Trinity College Science Center Director 13) CONTACT INFORMATION ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Thanks to everyone who contributed to this issue of E-mail News MARCH 8 IS INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1) AGI GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM SPECIAL UPDATE: 2-23-02 *** The President's FY 2003 Budget Request: Department of Energy *** IN A NUTSHELL: President Bush's fiscal year (FY) 2003 budget request includes $19.8 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE), a 3.2% increase. Within that nearly flat total, however, there were some big winners and bigger losers among geoscience-related programs. Although domestic energy security is a top priority of the Bush Administration, several key energy research programs are slated for deep cuts. Support for fossil energy research would drop 12.6% to $548.2 million. Oil research would receive a 37% cut to $35.4 million, and natural gas research would drop 50% to $22.6 million. DOE's Office of Science, which supports fundamental research at universities and national laboratories, would receive approximately $1 billion, a 2% increase. Within that total, geoscience research within the Basic Energy Sciences program would receive $21.3 million, the same as in FY 2002. Funding for geothermal energy programs would decrease 3% to $26.5 million. Support for the department's high-level nuclear waste disposal program would shoot up 40% to $527.1 million in order to carry out license application activities. On February 15th, President Bush announced his recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site to Congress. This update is the fourth in a series on how the geosciences fared in President Bush's FY 2003 budget request. Previous alerts on USGS, NSF, NASA, NOAA, and EPA can be accessed at http://www.agiweb.org/gap. A final budget update will cover remaining geoscience programs. ********************** Overall, the request for the Department of Energy (DOE) is up 3.2% to $19.8 billion. Of that total, $8 billion goes to the National Nuclear Security Agency with responsibility for development and maintenance of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile; $7.4 billion goes to cleaning up waste associated with nuclear weapon production over the past sixty years; $3.3 billion goes to support scientific research at national laboratories and universities; and $2.4 billion funds programs related to energy. *** Fossil Energy *** The budget request for DOE's Office of Fossil Energy (FE) looks remarkably similar to last year's request -- sizable cuts in the majority of fossil energy programs. The overall FE request is down 5.2% from last year's allocation, bringing the total to $816 million. Funding for actual R&D activities is down 12.6% to total $548.2 million. Once again, natural gas and oil research programs are faced with particularly large cuts. Last week, the House Science Committee met to assess the president's request for science programs. The committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Ralph Hall (TX), expressed his concern that DOE funding for domestic energy production and research is down significantly despite the fact that improving homeland security is a major theme of the president's budget. Hall, a co-chair of the Congressional Oil and Gas Forum, questioned DOE Chief Financial Officer Bruce Carnes about fossil energy research in particular. Carnes responded that the Office of Fossil Energy is undergoing a mission review process that will help it prioritize the areas in which industry is not undertaking research and where federal investment is most beneficial. Peppered throughout the FE budget document are snippets of information including one that states: "Public Benefit: The National Academy of Sciences reported economic benefits of $4.5 billion from 1978 to 2000 resulting from the Office of Fossil Energy's investment in advanced oil exploration and production technologies -- a nearly 4 to 1 return on federal R&D dollars. The investment also resulted in the production of more than half a billion barrels of U.S. oil that might otherwise have remained in the ground." But such praise translated into a 36.8% cut to the Oil Technology program for a total of $35.4 million. Funding for exploration and production (E&P) activities, specifically noted in the quote, would drop 49.3% to total $16.4 million. The majority of the E&P funding would go into PRIME, a program designed to "support high-risk, fundamental research that could produce revolutionary advances in oil technology," which will kick off in April 2002. Funding for fundamental geoscience research to improve characterization of oil-bearing formations will also continue to be funded through E&P. Also within the Oil Technology account, reservoir management activities would be funded at $9.5 million (down 26.6%) and environmental protection activities related to oil field operations would be funded at $9.5 million (down 11.2%). The budget document notes that the environmental management account would scale back risk assessment activities in favor of supporting cooperative efforts between oversight agencies, both at the local and federal level, to improve the permitting process for oil production. The stated goal of the Natural Gas Technologies program is to "add almost 2 trillion cubic feet per year of additional gas production" by 2010. The program is slated for a 50% cut down to $22.6 million. Citing a period of expected growth in the coming years in natural gas, DOE budget documents state that the FE should target funding toward areas with the greatest return and that "industry clearly is not funding major development efforts." The requested $15.5 million for natural gas exploration and production is a 24.6% decrease from last year's allocation. A majority of the natural gas E&P account will be directed to the final year of development in several advanced drilling and diagnostic tools, including research in the area of secondary gas recovery. E&P funds will be invested in developing technologies for drilling in ultra-deep waters and continental deep drilling, such as in the Rocky Mountains. The budget document states that E&P will continue to support the Stripper Well Gas Consortium. Within the natural gas research program, two subaccounts are zeroed out; Gas Infrastructure activities would be transferred to DOE's Office of Pipeline Safety and Emerging Processing Technologies would fall completely to the private industry. Over the past few years, there has been an increase in funding for research programs associated with gas hydrates. The FY 2003 budget scales back (by 54.1%) the funding for gas hydrate research, but the $4.5 million requested, according to the budget document, "is still sufficient to collect important data on safety and seafloor stability and the role of hydrates in global climate change." Even presidential initiatives are not spared from the FE cuts. President Bush began a new Clean Coal Research Initiative (CCRI) in last year's budget that is continued in the FY 2003 budget. This budget request is the second in a planned ten-year, $2 billion investment to improve technologies for using abundant domestic coal reserves. FE plans to combine $150 million from FY 2002, $30 million from the now-closed Power Plant Improvement Initiative (a Clinton-era program), and $150 million from the FY 2003 budget -- for a total of $330 million -- to solicit proposals for cooperative, cost-sharing demonstrative projects for CCRI. The first solicitation, expected in the coming weeks, "will focus on rapidly advancing technologies that can be accelerated into the power sector through government-industry partnership projects." Future funding for CCRI is expected to be supported through royalties from patents expected from these early projects. Research on carbon sequestration is part of the CCRI, and is one of the two areas to see an increase. The budget directs $54 million, an increase of 67.8% from last year, toward carbon sequestration research to aid in moving promising laboratory projects to field tests. The other area of CCRI to see an increase in the request is the Advanced Research account, which requested a 13% increase to total $31.7 million. The FE request includes $188.8 million for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and $93.1 million for the Naval Petroleum Reserves, both increases. Last fall, President Bush announced an executive order to fill the SPR to its full capacity using in-kind royalties from federal leases, and the first deliveries are expected this spring. Increased funds for SPR are expected to help cover the costs associated with these deliveries. The FE budget document is available at http://fossil.energy.gov/budget/. *** Office of Science *** The president's budget request for DOE's Office of Science is $1 billion, a 2% increase from last year's allocation. A key area of interest for the geosciences is the Basic Energy Science (BES) program, which sponsors fundamental research in areas to support the department's missions in energy, environment, and national security. A budget restructuring to align the accounts with the BES working structure would move geoscience programs into a combined Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Energy Biosciences Research account, which would total $220.1 million, a 5.9% increase. Within that total, Geoscience Research would remain at the $21.3 million received last year, continuing to support geophysical research focused on "new approaches to understand[ing] physical properties of fluids, rocks and minerals." The Office of Science and Basic Energy Science budget documents are available at http://www.sc.doe.gov/orm/Budget_Finance/FY_03_Budget/FY_03_Budget.htm . *** Geothermal Energy *** DOE funds research into geothermal energy production through the department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The geothermal program would receive $26.5 million in FY2003, a 3% decrease. Overall, spending on renewable energy would increase 5% to $291.5 million. For more details on the renewables budget request, see http://www.eren.doe.gov/budget/. *** Nuclear Waste Disposal *** President Bush's budget request includes a large increase for the Yucca Mountain project, anticipating his February 15th decision to officially recommend the Nevada site to Congress as the nation's permanent disposal site for high-level nuclear waste. The president's decision comes after DOE spent $4 billion over the past 20 years characterizing the site. The FY 2003 budget for DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management would increase 40% to $527.1 million with the bulk of the increase related to a shift from site characterization to activities supporting submission of a license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The president acted one day after Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham made his official recommendation. Abraham noted in his letter to Bush: "I have considered whether sound science supports the determination that the Yucca Mountain site is scientifically and technically suitable for the development of a repository. I am convinced that it does. The results of this extensive investigation and the external technical reviews of this body of scientific work give me confidence for the conclusion, based on sound scientific principles, that a repository at Yucca Mountain will be able to protect the health and safety of the public when evaluated against the radiological protection standards adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency and implemented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission." Under the procedures outlined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (amended in 1987). the president's recommendation triggers a series of actions. The State of Nevada has 60 days to submit a Notice of Disapproval to Congress, which the state will certainly do (in addition to suing DOE for failing to follow proper procedures). Often referred to as a veto, the Nevada governor's notice must be voted on by Congress within the next 90 days that they are in session ("in the first period of 90 calendars of continuous session"). Unlike a presidential veto, the state's notice can be overturned by a simple majority vote in both houses. If the disapproval is overturned, then the Secretary of Energy has 90 days to submit a license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This series of actions could be over in a matter of months, although a recent General Accounting Office report suggested that DOE would not be ready to submit a license application for several years. Moreover, Nevada is launching a full-court press, both legally and politically, to stop the project. For more on developments related to Yucca Mountain, see http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/yucca.html. More details on the overall DOE budget request can be found at http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/03budget/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 2) AGI GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM SPECIAL UPDATE: 2-21-02 *** The President's FY 2003 Budget Request: NOAA, NASA, and EPA *** IN A NUTSHELL: This update is the third in a series on how the geosciences fared in President Bush's fiscal year (FY) 2003 budget request. Previous updates covered activities at the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey. They are available at http://www.agiweb.org/gap. A future update will address the Department of Energy and other remaining geoscience programs. The president requested $3.2 billion for NOAA, a 1.5% decrease. Within that total, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research would receive $308 million, down 20%; the bulk of the cut is due to transfers. Within NASA, earth science programs are flat-funded at $1.6 billion, but most programs are cut in order to make room for a large increase in mission operations. Earth Science Program Science funding would increase by 3.9% to total $354 million. Funding for Mars exploration is up 9.4% to $454 million. The president has requested $7.7 billion for EPA, a decrease of 3.5% from FY 2002. Funds for science programs -- the "sound science" goal in EPA budget parlance -- would drop 2.4% to $327.8 million. *** National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration *** The president's budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) totals $3.2 billion in discretionary spending, which is a 1.5% decrease from last year's allocation. According to NOAA budget documents, the agency would see a saving of $24.3 million in program terminations. In what seems to be a favorite past-time in agency budget offices, NOAA has realigned several of its budget accounts, creating a challenge for comparison with past years. The budget total also includes the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposal for agencies to fund all of their employee retirement funds out of the agency's budget rather than, as is currently done, through the White House Office of Personnel Management. The majority of research at NOAA is managed by the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), which requested $307.5 million, a cut of 20% from FY 2002 funding. The majority of the decrease is due to the transfer of the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation program ($2.3 million) to the National Weather Service and the transfer of the National Sea Grant program ($62 million) to the National Science Foundation. OAR climate change research activities would go up by close to 14% from last year -- the president's newly unveiled Climate Change Research Initiative (CRRI) would provide $18 million of that boost. Weather and air quality research would increase by 6.5% to a total of $59 million. The largest decrease in OAR is targeted at the Oceans, Coastal, and Great Lake Research account, which would go down by 61% to $54 million. That decrease largely removes additions made by Congress for specific projects ("earmarks") in the FY 2002 appropriations process. The National Oceans Service (NOS), which is steward of the nation's coastal and ocean resources, would receive a total of $410.9 million, nearly a 19% decrease from last year's allocation. Within NOS, the ocean resources conservation and assessment activities are down close to 21% for a total of $122.6 million. The request for activities under the Ocean and Coastal Management account total $140.5 million, which is an increase of just over 1% from last year. The National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service is up 8.6% in the budget request, for a total of $764.7 million. Funding for the National Weather Service (NWS) is up by nearly 8%, totaling $800.8 million. The big winner in NWS is the Advanced Hydrological Prediction Service, which is marked to be more than tripled. The National Marine Fisheries Service would total $741.2 million, a 6% decrease from last year. NOAA's budget documents are available at http://www.ofa.noaa.gov/~nbo/. *** National Aeronautics and Space Administration *** The president's request of $15 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) would increase the agency's budget by less than one percent above last year's allocation. Funding for the Office of Earth Science would be virtually unchanged at $1.6 billion. Within that apparent flat funding, a four-fold increase in mission operations is offset by cuts in virtually all the other programs within the Earth Science Enterprise (ESE). ESE data information system activities would receive $74.3 million, a cut of almost 75%. The Earth Explorers satellite program's budget would be cut by 4% to $71.2 million. Earth Science Program Science funding would increase by 3.9% to total $353.9 million. Budget documents indicate that no new missions will be undertaken until the administration conducts a review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (http://www.usgcrp.gov). The lion's share of the funding coordinated by this interagency initiative, established by the first President Bush, is related to NASA Earth Science satellite systems. NASA's human space flight program would receive a 10% decrease, most of which is related to the International Space Station. The Space, Aeronautics and Technology account -- which includes the Office of Earth Science -- would go up by 9.9% to total $8.8 billion. Of this total, $3.4 billion would go to space science, an increase of 19%; another $842 million would go to biological and physical research, an increase of 2.7%; and $2.8 billion would go to aerospace technology, an increase of 12.3%. Education activities at NASA would decrease by 36.8% to total $144 million. The Mars Exploration program requested $453.6 million, a 9.4% increase from last year. NASA budget documents are available at http://ifmp.nasa.gov/codeb/budget2003/. Additional information is available from AGU Science Legislative Alert (ASLA) 02-05 at http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/asla/asla-list?read=2002-05.msg. *** Environmental Protection Agency *** No agency has done a better job of aligning its budget request with performance goals related to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Unfortunately, those GPRA goals have little to do with either the agency's organization structure or with the way that congressional appropriators fund the agency. As a result, EPA budget numbers -- presented in the context of the agency's ten GPRA goals -- are rather difficult to assess. With that caveat in place, President Bush's budget requests $7.7 billion for EPA, a decrease of 3.5% from last year's allocation not including the additional funds from last year's anti-terrorism supplemental bill. Funding for the clean air goal would increase slightly to $598 million. The request for the clean and safe water goal is $3.2 billion, a decrease of 14%. Within that goal, the Total Maximum Daily Load program is up close to 1% to total $21.4 million, and the wetlands program would increase by 3% to total $18.4 million. Under the budget request, funding for clean air programs would be $5.97 billion to continue the National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program to reduce air toxics and acid rain risks. Waste management, restoration of contaminated waste sites, and emergency response programs would receive $1.5 billion. The Brownfields program would more than double under the president's budget, totaling $200 million. A new proposal in the EPA budget is $8 million to maintain the Homestake Mine until a decision is made about making the site into a federally funded physics laboratory for neutrino collection. Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risk programs would receive $276 million in funding, a cut of 2.5%. These programs deal with greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depletion and the development of cleaner technologies. The majority of science done at EPA is funded through the sound science goal, which requested a 2.4% decrease to total $327.8 million. This request continues a tradition begun by the Clinton administration of requesting cuts for the sound science goal. We are resisting the temptation to draw conclusions but cannot resist suggesting that a new name be found for the goal. Two EPA programs are zeroed out in the budget request, the Common Sense Initiative and the STAR fellowship program. Funds associated with the latter, totaling roughly $9 million, would be transferred to the National Science Foundation. Coastal environmental activities would go up by close to 5%, for a total of $7.7 million. Research activities to support pollution prevention would increase by 17% to total $44 million, and the EPA Science Advisory Board would see an increased to $3.3 million. EPA's budget documents are available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/budget.htm. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 3) AGI LAUNCHES WEB SITE PROVIDING FREE INFORMATION ON GEOSCIENCE CAREERS AND EMPLOYERS ALEXANDRIA,VA - This week, the American Geological Institute (AGI) launched a new web site highlighting information on all aspects of geoscience employment. This free publication, Guide to Geoscience Careers and Employers, is accessible online at http://guide.agiweb.org. The Guide presents information on choosing, maintaining, and advancing a career specifically in the geosciences and provides useful geoscience-employer information that students need in order to find geoscience employment. It is designed as a "living" document - one that will be updated and expanded as new information becomes available. "This web site is a valuable resource for students, geoscience departments, and career centers," says Dr. Marcus E. Milling, AGI's Executive Director. "In today's rapidly changing world, knowledge of real-life work experiences and current workforce patterns are vital for anyone wanting to make informed educational and career choices." The Guide's overview provides a summary of past and projected geoscience job markets, trends in college enrollments and degrees, employment trends and statistics, and job-hunting hints and strategies. Six employer categories are featured: oil and gas industry, mining industry, consulting firms in water resources and the environment, federal and state government agencies, national laboratories, and K-12 education. For each of these sectors, an experienced professional provides insight into employment trends, skills needed, and future directions applicable to that employment category. Also included are profiles of major companies and agencies, along with contact information, job descriptions, the recruiting process, and summer internship opportunities. A companion publication, the free Guide to Geoscience Departments, can also be accessed from this site. This web-based guide lists detailed information on almost 200 college and university geoscience departments, including contact information, admission procedures, degree requirements, financial information (including housing), available financial assistance, field-camp information, research and support facilities (computers, labs, libraries), faculty teaching and research specialties, department geoscience specialties, and historical enrollment and degree data. The American Geological Institute is a nonprofit federation of 39 geoscientific and professional associations that represent more than 120,000 geologists, geophysicists, and other earth scientists. Founded in 1948, AGI provides information services to geoscientists, serves as a voice of shared interests in our profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience education, and strives to increase public awareness of the vital role the geosciences play in mankind's use of resources and interaction with the environment. More information about AGI can be found at http://www.agiweb.org. The Institute also provides a public-outreach web site, http://www.earthscienceworld.org. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 4) AGI PLANNING FOR THE 2002 EARTH SCIENCE WEEK AGI invites you to attend an important planning meeting for Earth Science Week (ESW) at the AAPG Meeting in Houston. The ESW Planning Meeting will be held from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Monday, March 11 in the Arboretum I-II meeting room of the Hyatt Regency Houston. Please RSVP to this message by Monday March 4 if you plan to participate. Thank you. Sharon Smith ses@agiweb.org ========================================================= Earth Science Week Planning Meeting AAPG Convention Monday, March 11, 2002, 2:00-4:00 p.m. Arboretum I-II, Hyatt Regency Houston Agenda 2:00 p.m. - Welcome and Introductory Remarks 2:15 p.m. - Earth Science Week 2002: Objectives, Plans for activities and events, Materials, Promotion 3:00 p.m. - Sustaining Earth Science Week 3:20 p.m. - Developing state and regional networks; Increasing individual participation; Models for developing state and regional networks 3:40 p.m. - Increasing the Impact of Earth Science Week 4:00 p.m. - Adjourn ========================================================= ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 5) REBUTTAL OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARD RESPONSE Earlier this month, the American Geological Institute sent out an alert on an upcoming decision by the California State School Board on the California Science Framework for K-12 Public Schools, which are implementation guidelines for the state's science education content standards. The purpose of the alert and an accompanying letter from AGI Executive Director Marcus Milling and Stanford Dean of Earth Science Lynn Orr was to encourage the board to delay action and address concerns about negative consequences for earth science instruction. The American Geophysical Union, Geological Society of America, and Seismological Society of America also sent out alerts on this issue. Other member societies and California local and regional geoscience societies took action as well. Despite many e-mails and faxes sent by California geoscientists requesting a delay, the school board voted in favor of the Framework at its February 6th meeting. In turn, consultants for the state school board responded to the concerns of the geoscience community by chiding our organizations for issuing an erroneous alert, arguing that no policy change had been made and that earth science had not been downgraded. They also claimed that the framework merely quoted entrance requirements for the University of California and California State University systems. That response (an example of which follows at the end of this message) was not only dismissive but also highly misleading. Our concerns have only been amplified with closer inspection. Geoscientists in California should keep up the pressure. We sought the delay because language in the draft framework failed to live up to the promise of the standards, which treated earth science on a par with physics, chemistry, and biology in high school (grades 9- 12). In contrast, the framework recommended high-school graduation requirements under which earth science could only count in very specific circumstances, either in the context of an integrated science course or if other science courses were pre-requisites, in which case (the alert reader will note) the requirements would already have been met. At the end of this message, you will find direct quotes from the California Education Code, the Content Standards for California Public Schools, and finally the Draft California Science Framework for K-12 Public Schools. The statutory code is non-specific about which physical science courses must be taken for graduation. The California standards, adopted several years ago, give earth science a prominent place in the curriculum. Only the framework leaves earth science as the odd man out. As claimed by the consultants, the board may well have based its recommendation for minimum graduation requirements on UC/CSU entrance requirements. Regardless of the advisability of synchronizing these two sets of requirements, the framework should not sacrifice implementation of the earth science content standards in the process. Minimum graduation requirements are just that: minimum. And the students who will not be going to college are the very ones whom it is most important to reach in high school. These California citizens and future voters will live and work in one of the most geologically active places on Earth and will face decisions on where to buy a home and how to manage water and energy resources. They should learn earth science in high school. Clearly, the earth science community faces another challenge to change the UC/CSU entrance requirements. But that is and should be a separate issue for the university faculty to address. The school board's consultants assert that the framework does not establish any new policy, despite the fact that the document bills itself as the "blueprint for reform of science curriculum, instruction, professional preparation and development, and instructional materials in this state." Even if it does not set policy, the framework certainly is intended to guide policy, and that is just as important. The standards were a step forward for the earth sciences in California. The framework for implementing those standards should be yet another step forward. Instead, the framework takes one, or even two, steps back. This situation takes on new urgency because of the upcoming plans for exit testing. If earth science is not perceived to be a key component, then it will not be in the tests. Funds will be directed toward the tested subjects and away from all other areas. Whatever window was opened by the standards will be slammed shut. In Texas this past year, the state school board initially tried the same approach -- dismissing concerns raised by Texas geoscientists about the acceptability of earth science courses for meeting graduation requirements. Closer inspection brought on by continued pressure from those geoscientists, however, revealed that earth science indeed had been fundamentally downgraded, and since then hearings have been held by the board, and new requirements are being considered. It will take a strong effort by California geoscientists to ensure that the state school board lives up to the commitment made to the earth sciences in the standards. Given the board's fondness for the university entrance requirements, that effort needs to include a push by UC and CSU geoscience faculty to include earth science there as well. *** Quotes from Code, Standards, and Framework *** * Here's what the California Education Code, dating from the late 1980's, says. Note that it does not specify which physical science courses are acceptable: "51225.3. (a) Commencing with the 1988-89 school year, no pupil shall receive a diploma of graduation from high school who, while in grades 9 to 12, inclusive, has not completed all of the following:... (C) Two courses in science, including biological and physical sciences." Read it all at http://www.cde.ca.gov/shsd/hsgr/minimum.htm * Here's what the Content Standards for California Public Schools (passed in 1998) say: "The standards for grades nine through twelve are divided into four content strands: physics, chemistry, biology/life sciences, and earth sciences.... "The Science Content Standards serves as the basis of statewide student assessments, the science curriculum framework, and the evaluation of instructional materials. The Science Framework for California Public Schools is being revised to align with the standards. The framework will suggest ways in which to use the standards and make connections within and across grades; it will also provide guidance for instructional planning.... "The high school science standards require more than two years of science courses for students to achieve the breadth and depth described. Schools and districts will be challenged to develop a science curriculum that meets the needs of their students and provides them the maximum opportunity to learn the standards while encouraging students to study further in science.... "The Science Content Standards reflects the desired content of science curriculum in California public schools. This content should be taught so that students have the opportunity to build connections that link science to technology and societal impacts. Science, technology, and societal issues are strongly connected to community health, population, natural resources, environmental quality, natural and human-induced hazards, and other global challenges. The standards should be viewed as the foundation for understanding these issues." See full document at http://www.cde.ca.gov/standards/science/ * Finally, here is what the Draft California Science Framework for K- 12 Public Schools states in its introductory chapter (Chapter 1): "The Science Framework for California Public Schools is the blueprint for reform of science curriculum, instruction, professional preparation and development, and instructional materials in this state. It outlines the implementation of the Science Content Standards for California Public Schools (adopted by the State Board of Education in 1998) and connects the learning of science with the fundamental skills of reading, writing, and mathematics. The Science Content Standards are a concise description of what to teach at specific grade levels, and this framework extends those guidelines by providing the scientific background and the classroom context.... "The California Standards Tests for grades 9-11 are content specific depending upon the science courses in which they are enrolled. Blueprints for these tests and sample questions are made publicly available by the California Department of Education. It is recommended that local education agencies review and (as necessary) improve their high school science programs so that: 1) All high school science courses that meet state or local graduation requirements, or UC/CSU entrance requirements, are based on the Science Content Standards; 2) Every laboratory science course is standards-based and ensures that students master both content-specific and investigation and experimentation standards; 3) Every science program ensures that students are prepared to be successful on the California Standards Tests; 4) All students take, at minimum, two years of laboratory science providing fundamental knowledge in at least two of the following content strands: biology/life sciences, chemistry, and physics. Laboratory courses in earth sciences are acceptable if they have as prerequisites (or provide basic knowledge in) biology, chemistry, or physics." See full document at http://www.cde.ca.gov/board/notices/sciencefrmwk/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 6) CALL FOR US NOMINATIONS ON TECHNICAL/INDUSTRY OCEN DRILLING ADVISORY PANELS At next week's US Science Advisory Committee (USSAC) meeting (20-22 February 2002), we will be identifying a slate of nominees for the three panels in the interim Science Advisory Structure (iSAS) to the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP): interim Pollution Prevention and Safety Panel (iPPSP) interim Technical Advisory Panel (iTAP) the interim Industry Liaison (iILP) The slate of U.S. nominees is due to the iSAS office by 1 March 2002. I expect that there will be about 5 U.S. members on each panel. I have included excerpts from the draft mandates for these bodies below the signature block; the more complete draft mandates can be found at http://www.joi- odp.org/USSSP/interimdocs.html. As the issues facing these bodies are technically complex and essential to the scientific success of the program, your input will be most valuable on possible nominees, including self- nominations. Please include indication of the areas of specialization of the individuals whose names you forward. Please send nominations to me (delaney@cats.ucsc.edu) with a copy to John Farrell (jfarrell@joiscience.org). Replies by Friday, 15 February would be particularly appreciated, although I welcome your input at any time. Thank you very much! ~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~ Peggy Delaney Professor and Chair, Ocean Sciences Chair, USSAC Ocean Sciences 1156 High Street (831) 459 4736 phone University of California (831) 459 4882 fax Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://oceansci.ucsc.edu/ delaney@cats.ucsc.edu ~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~ iPPSP 6.1 General Purpose. The general purpose of the interim Pollution Prevention and Safety Panel (iPPSP) is to provide independent advice to the iPC with regard to safety and pollution hazards that may exist because of general and specific geologic circumstances of proposed drill sites, and advice on what drilling technology should be applied in order to avoid drilling hazards. 6.4 Membership. Members of the iPPSP are specialists who can provide expert advice on the safe drilling of proposed drill sites, including sites in hydrocarbon prone areas. Members of the iPPSP are primarily selected on the basis of this specific expertise, with a view toward a fair representation of IWG members as a second priority. Membership is determined by iPC based on nominations from IWG countries. Panel membership, not to exceed 15, should be maintained as small as is allowed by the range of expertise necessary to meet mandate requirements. iILP 9.2 Mandate. The iILP will: 1. Develop effective personal links between academic and industry scientists with mutual research and technical/engineering interests. 2. Identify barriers to industry participation in IODP and recommend solutions for overcoming these barriers; 3. Develop mechanisms for sharing industry data/expertise/resources with IODP scientists, and for making IODP results of maximum use to industry; 4. Act as the liaison group for IODP to industry and selected industry associations, and promote IODP educational and outreach activities within selected industry professional organizations. 5. Assist with the identification of scientists and engineers from industry to serve on panels, committees and working groups of IODP; 6. Define industrial priority research within the IODP context and advocate industry participation in IODP research and technical development. 7. Assist iPC in the establishment of interim Detailed Planning Groups for complex multiple platform, multiple-leg programs, and/or interim Program Planning Groups as needed. 9.4 Membership. ILP will be composed of 15 people representing as many IWG member nations as possible to maintain reasonable size and balance of expertise and research interests, with an ideal goal of about two thirds of the members from industry and one third from academia. Nominations will be solicited from the JOIDES and OD21 science advisory structure, industry colleagues, and national ODP offices. iPC will be responsible for approving iILP members. In consultation with the iILP Chair, the iPC Co-Chairs will recommend candidates for membership as needed. Academic iILP members should have experience in scientific ocean drilling, and scientific expertise related to industry interests or be actively involved in academic/industrial collaborations. iTAP 8.2 Mandate: The iTAP provides advice and service to IODP through the iPC by identifying long-term (2-5 year lead time) technical needs required to meet the scientific objectives of the IODP ISP, and by recommending how these needs might be met. Such needs and advice may include: 1 Recommendations on performance requirements for specific technological needs. 2 The assessment of whether these needs can be most optimally met through the use of "Commercial off-the-shelfO technology or whether R&D within IODP will be required. 3 Recommendation to the iPC concerning the appropriate mode for pursuing such R&D, (i.e., through IODP development, university or industry development, or joint ventures). 4 Advice and recommendations to the iPC on the process and procedures for RFP development and evaluation in support of technical design and innovation. 5 Regular review of the progress made by the science community and iSAS in planning for the technological needs of the IODP 8.4 Membership: The iTAP should be made up of fifteen to eighteen members, with a nominal term of an individual on the panel being three years. Each IWG member may name one representative to the iTAP. All other members of the iTAP will be selected based on the expertise needed on the panel. Nominations for these additional members will be made to, and approved by, the iPC. Members of iTAP should be specialists who can provide expert advice in the fields of marine operations on a variety of platforms, down-hole logging and instrumentation, drilling technology (including mining technology and drilling under extreme conditions), geotechnics and other disciplines as needs are identified. In order to meet the need for added breadth of expertise and the receipt of technical advice in a timely manner, the iTAP may recommend to the iPC the establishment of Working Groups to address specific technological issues. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 7) WASHINGTON WIRE FEBRUARY 15, 2002 The new Washington Wire is now available at . The topics for the February 15th wire are: * AWIS to Host Events at Upcoming AAAS Meeting International Perspective * Women Demand Greater Representation at World Economic Forum * University for Poor Asian Women to be Created * Olympics Stress International Goodwill Government * Bush Submits FY 2003 Budget Request * Legislative Alert: Animal Welfare Act Under Consideration Health care, Workplace, and Education * California Community Colleges Fail to Adhere to Title IX Regulations * Lifetime Launches Anti-Violence Campaign * Organ Transplant Advancements from PPL Therapeutics Events and Announcements * Call for Presidential Award Nominations * Conference to be Held for Baldrige Education Recipients * National Youth Leadership Council to Hold Service Conference ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 8) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GEOSCIENCE TEACHERS ANNOUNCES WORKSHOP FOR EARLY CAREER FACULTY IN GEOSCIENCES The National Association of Geoscience Teachers announces a workshop for Early Career Faculty in the Geosciences: Teaching, Research, and Managing Your Career. The workshop will be June 1-5, 2002 at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA. Participants must have a faculty position at a 2-year or 4-year college or at a university and be in their first four years of full-time teaching. These workshops are supported by an Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement grant from the National Science Foundation (and thus are FREE except for travel to and from Williamsburg). (Opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NSF.) During the workshop, each participant will: Learn about a variety of active learning strategies, different ways to integrate research into geoscience courses, and various grading and assessment techniques. Share ideas and strategies for teaching entry-level courses as well as upper-level courses. Consider successful strategies for advising/supervising undergraduate and graduate research students. Discuss life as an early-career faculty member and explore various ways to balance teaching, research, and service responsibilities. Leave with examples of syllabi, assignments, and activities for various courses, strategies for balancing competing demands, and a support network of other early career faculty. DATES The workshop will begin on Saturday evening, June 1, 2002 and will end after dinner on Wednesday evening, June 5. Participants must attend all sessions. The workshop will have an optional (and strongly recommended) field trip to the National Science Foundation on Thursday, June 6. ELIGIBILITY Participants in this workshop must hold a teaching position at a 2- or 4- year college or university and be in their first four years of full-time teaching at the time of application. COST The workshop itself is FREE, thanks to a grant from the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education. The grant covers the operational costs of the workshop plus room, board, and workshop materials for the participants. Participants or their home institution must provide transportation to and from the workshop. Limited funds are available to provide some support for participants whose institutions have limited resources for faculty development support. (We have a few stipends (generally up to $200 each) available for participants with limited financial resources. If you wish to apply for one of these stipends, please include a request for such support with your application and provide a budget of anticipated expenses and other support sources.) APPLICATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA The workshop size is limited. The final list of participants will be established with the goal of assembling a group representing a wide range of experiences and educational environments. Application materials must be received by Friday, March 8, 2002 Your application should include your name, address, phone number, email address, number of years of part-time teaching (including this year), number of years of full-time teaching (including this year) as well as a short c.v., a short statement indicating why you want to attend the workshop and what you hope to gain from attending. Please send this to Heather Macdonald via email (rhmacd@wm.edu) by March 8, 2002 FACILITIES The workshop will be held at the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. Participants will be housed in dorms on campus and will eat meals on campus. Early Career Workshop Project leaders: Heather Macdonald, College of William and Mary Barbara Tewksbury, Hamilton College Richelle Allen-King, Washington State University Randall Richardson, University of Arizona David Mogk, Montana State University Steven Semken, Dine College FOR MORE INFORMATION Please contact Heather Macdonald or 1-757-221-2443 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 9) COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT: WELL CUTTINGS WORKSHOP TIME AND PLACE: 9:00am to 5:00pm, Sunday, March 10, 2002 Doubletree Hotel, 400 Dallas, Nautile Room, Houston, TX COURSE DESCRIPTION This one-day workshop looks at well cuttings from the standpoint of sample description and reservoir facies analysis. The theory is presented, then followed by a hands-on exercise, looking first at artificial well cuttings to gain confidence in the ability to recognize composition, texture, porosity, and hydrocarbon shows in very small samples. Several examples of poured-out well cuttings are "walked through" discussing pitfalls, problems, ways to get the job done more effectively. The class ends with an exercise that has participants describe well cuttings that are provided by the instructor or by the student who needs to get some samples "looked at". PROGRAM OUTLINE One day is spent in a classroom, with the following schedule: I. Lecture on the art/science of examining well cuttings II. The Soft Rock Cafe...basic petrographic reference material on CD- ROM's III. Workshop Exercises 1) Looking at artificial cuttings--"as good as it ever gets!" 2) "Walking through poured cuttings" for a few wells 3) A hands-on exercise in logging typical, average well cuttings...yours or ours? TOTAL LENGTH OF TIME -- one full day, from 9:00am until 5:00pm Lecture is about one-third of the course, the remainder being workshop exercises. BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATING IN THIS WORKSHOP hands-on experience excellent review and good samples comprehensive coverage on-site consulting, using your samples INSTRUCTORS: Clif Jordan and James Lee Wilson Biographic Summaries: Clif Jordan holds a PhD degree from Rice University in Houston, Texas, specializing in the petrology of sedimentary rocks. He has worked the last thirty years in the petroleum industry for Shell, Conoco, and Mobil in assignments involving international exploration, production, research, and technical training. He has published extensively in the field of carbonate geology, especially with regard to sample examination techniques, reservoir facies relationships, and modern carbonate sediments. In the last few years, he formed Integrated Data Services, Inc., a US- based consulting company, working as carbonaterocks.com with James Lee Wilson who was his professor at Rice. They work on consulting and training projects for major oil companies and for host-government companies around the world. Professor Wilson's career cannot be summarized here for brevity's sake...with numerous industry and academic honors, and now recognized as a renowned consultant. Please see our website at carbonaterocks.com for further information. Past projects have been from Europe, the Middle East, Canada, Australia, Indonesia, and most recently Mexico. TYPICAL AUDIENCE: Exploration and production geologists who rely on cuttings to tell them about depositional facies, diagenetic overprints, and reservoir porosity. Mudloggers who generally log the physical properties of cuttings will appreciate the benefits of adding geologic descriptions and interpretations as well. Geologists with a recent batch of cuttings samples on their desk can put together a sample log of those samples in this workshop. COST: $325 per participant (15 % student discounts available) --Microscopes and computers are provided for this workshop. If you have a binocular scope that you use routinely, it would be best if you could bring that scope to the workshop. Registration: e-mail: clif@carbonaterocks.com or jim@carbonaterocks.com phone: 573-431-0425 FAX: 573-431-2933 Please feel free to post this notice on your geo-bulletin board! For more information: see our website at www.carbonaterocks.com ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 10) MEMBER NEWS Sue Swingholm's husband, Evan, has been transferred to Doha, Qatar, with Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Evan will be the new Environmental, Safety and Health Manager for Anadarko managing the oil and gas fields around Qatar and Oman. Sue will concentrate on her son, Cole, the culture of Qatar and the Middle East, and will become active in local organizations such as the American Women's Association. Sue left URS Corporation, where she worked part-time as an Senior Environmental Scientist and Auditor, in February 2002. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 11) NEW PUBLICATION 2001-112 NEW FROM WESTVIEW PRESS! PLATE TECTONICS Plate Tectonics An Insider's History Of The Modern Theory Of The Earth Edited by Naomi Oreskes "A useful addition to the history-of-science literature." Kirkus "A must for anyone wanting to know how a revolution in science really takes place." Robert D. Ballard Ph.D., President, Institute for Exploration "This book gains its uniqueness not only from the fame of its.contributing authors, every one of whom is a legend in the field, but also from the sincerity of the highly personalized accounts." G. M. Purdy, Director, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University $35.00; 0-8133-3981-2; cloth To order, call 1.800.386.5656 or visit us online at www.westviewpress.com ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 12) POSITION OPENINGS 2001-115 Colorado College Structural Geology THE COLORADO COLLEGE The Department of Geology seeks applicants for a one-year non-tenure track position beginning in August 2002. Ph.D. or ABD is required. Appointments will be at the assistant professor level for candidates with a PhD. Desired area of expertise is Structural Geology with additional expertise in such fields as Tectonics, Petrology, and Geodynamics are welcomed. In addition to teaching undergraduate courses in these fields, expectations for both positions include teaching Introductory Geology and other courses in the candidates' areas of specialty. Undergraduate research is an integral part of our curriculum, and willingness to advise research in the candidates' areas of expertise would be a distinct advantage, as would an interest in interacting with the Environmental Sciences program. The College is committed to increasing diversity of the community and curriculum. Candidates who can contribute to that goal are particularly encouraged to apply. Applicants must be committed to high-quality innovative undergraduate teaching, including field-oriented courses. The Block System of education at Colorado College, in which professors teach and students take only one course at a time for 3-1/2 weeks, lends itself to field and project-based teaching. The Department has excellent field and laboratory facilities for teaching and research in both hard-rock and soft-rock geology. Send statement of teaching and research interests, curriculum vitae, and names and letters from three referees to: Dr. Paul Myrow, Chair, Department of Geology, Colorado College, Colorado Springs, CO 80903, pmyrow@coloradocollege.edu. Review of applications will begin February 15, 2001. Applications will be accepted until the position has been filled. The Colorado College welcomes members of all groups, and reaffirms its commitment not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability in its educational programs, activities, and employment practices. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ****************************** 2002-004 Texas A&M University Petroleum Geosciences The Department of Geology and Geophysics at Texas A&M University invites applications for a tenure-track position in petroleum geosciences, preferably at the Assistant Professor level. A Ph.D. is required by the time employment begins. We anticipate filling this position by August 2002. The successful candidate is expected to teach at both graduate and undergraduate levels and to develop a forward-looking, externally funded research program in fundamental petroleum geosciences. Candidates with experience in solving subsurface problems by integrating geological, geophysical and petrophysical data are preferred. Previous experience with the petroleum industry is desirable but not a prerequisite. The specific research field of the successful candidate is open, but we hope to find an individual who will complement existing departmental programs in reservoir characterization, basin studies, seismic interpretation, sequence stratigraphy, structure, tectonics, and sedimentary geochemistry. A record of accomplishment and a promising research program are more important than the specific study focus. Expertise with the latest technologies for characterization, modeling, and visualization of reservoirs and regional petroleum systems is desirable. Many opportunities exist to participate in and build on collaborative programs with colleagues in Petroleum Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Oceanography, Ocean Drilling Program, and Geochemical and Environmental Research Group. Submit a curriculum vita, recent reprints, a statement of research and teaching interests, and the names, postal and e-mail addresses, and fax numbers of three references to: Dr. Wayne M. Ahr, Chair, Petroleum Geoscientist Search Committee, Department of Geology & Geophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3115. Texas A&M University, a land-, sea- and space-grant institution, is located in College Station, Texas, a dynamic community of 140,000 people. Texas A&M University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer committed to excellence through diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Departmental facilities and programs can be reviewed at our web site (http://geoweb.tamu.edu/). ****************************** 2002-006 RCW Communication Design Research Position PROGRAM OFFICERS (Geophysicist, Geologist, Meteorologist, Oceanographer, Physicist, Mathematician) The Office of Naval Research (ONR) is seeking qualified individuals to serve as Program Officers for basic and applied research in several disciplines. Candidates will plan, evaluate, initiate, organize, encourage, direct, and coordinate basic and applied research, at U.S. universities and Federal or industry laboratories, in support of the Department of Navy and the Department of Defense. Positions can also be filled under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act as a two-year, temporary rotator position from a university or not- for-profit institution. Degree requirements are noted in parentheses. Each ONR Program Officer has the option to spend up to 20% of his or her time doing personal research. Marine Geosciences (Geophysicist, Geologist) GS-14/15 ($74,697$114,224) Requires knowledge of specific technical and programmatic fields or applications including marine geophysical surveying, instrument development, modeling and observation of sediment transport processes, marine electromagnetics, mechanical properties of marine sediments, and general marine geology and geophysics. Marine Meteorology (Meteorologist) GS-14/15 level ($74,697$114,224) Requires knowledge of specific technical and programmatic fields or applications including marine boundary layer, air-sea interaction, atmospheric predictability and dynamics, coastal mesoscale numerical weather prediction and data assimilation, and marine and coastal forecasting. Focus on air-sea interaction and/or Navy meteorological requirements. Physical Oceanography (Oceanographer or Physicist) GS-13/14/15 ($63,211$114,224) Requires knowledge of specific technical and programmatic fields or applications including ocean internal waves and turbulence, air sea interaction, surface and bottom boundary layer physics, fronts and eddies, and eastern and western boundary currents. Focus on small-scale physical oceanography. Ocean Modeling and Prediction (Oceanographer, Physicist, Mathematician) GS-13/14/15 ($63,211$114,224) Requires knowledge of specific technical and programmatic fields or applications including ocean numerical modeling, sub-grid scale flux parameterization, multidisciplinary coupled modeling, data assimilation, optimal adaptive sampling, evaluation and validation methodologies, and prediction metrics. Focus on modeling of non- physical ocean properties embedded in the physical models. For information on qualifications and how to apply, see ONR's web site, http://www.onr.navy.mil. For technical information, contact Dr. Melbourne G. Briscoe on (703) 696-4120 or email at briscom@onr.navy.mil Look for us at the AMS Annual Meeting 13-17 January at the Orange County Convention Ctr, Orlando, Florida. U.S. CITIZENSHIP REQUIRED AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ****************************** 2002-010 Texas A&M University Seismology The Department of Geology and Geophysics at Texas A&M University invites applications for a tenure-track faculty position in seismology beginning in August 2002. Applicants must have a Ph.D. at the time of appointment. The position is offered at the assistant professor level. The successful applicant will be expected to collaborate with existing programs in petroleum geology and geophysics, structural geology, and stratigraphy within our department. Furthermore, opportunities exist to participate in and build on collaborative programs with colleagues in petroleum engineering and oceanography, and elsewhere, at Texas A&M University. The successful applicant will also be expected to teach effectively at the undergraduate and graduate levels in geology and geophysics; supervise student research at the undergraduate, M.S., and Ph.D. levels; and initiate and maintain a vigorous externally funded research program related to, but not limited to, topics in petroleum exploration and production. Interested candidates should submit a packet containing a letter of application, a curriculum vitae, a statement of teaching and research objectives and accomplishments, and the names, addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of three referees. The packet should be sent to: Dr. Luc T. Ikelle (Ikelle@tamu.edu), Geophysics Search Committee Chair, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3115, USA. Electronic applications are particularly encouraged. (Visit http://geoweb.tamu.edu/ and choose "Seismology".) We will begin reviewing applications on March 25, 2002. We encourage applications from women, members of ethnic minorities, and individuals with disabilities. Texas A&M University offers equal opportunity in employment and education. ****************************** 2002-015 Trinity College Science Center Director Science Center Director Trinity College seeks a Director for its Center for Interdisciplinary Science. As Trinity's program center for advancing science education, the Center represents the College's science departments (Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Physics) and its interdisciplinary science programs (Biochemistry, Neuroscience and Environmental Science). As major responsibilities, the Director: * serves as a voice for the advancement of science and science education in all facets of the College; * coordinates all programs related to the advancement of science education; * plans the curriculum for the Interdisciplinary Science Program (ISP), a special two-year honors-level program for prospective science majors, teaches several of the ISP seminars and coordinates the placement of ISP students in affiliated internships; * works with the Admissions Office to attract students interested in science to the College and helps recruit students for the ISP; * works closely both with the Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations and the Faculty Grants officers in securing external funding for the College's diverse science programs; * plans and administers budgets for science capital equipment and laboratory start-up expenses; * coordinates science facilities planning (including classrooms, teaching laboratories, and research laboratories); * coordinates summer research opportunities for Trinity College students; * serves on the advisory committee for The Trinity College Field Station at Church Farm; * develops and coordinates science-based outreach programs to the Hartford community (and particularly for the Greater Hartford Academy for Mathematics and Science, a magnet secondary school adjacent to the Trinity campus), and for the design of non- curricular on-campus programs for science students, with emphasis on groups under-represented in the sciences; * as needed, provides support for special science programs such as the Health fellows program and the annual Robotics competition. Undergraduate science teaching experience, public communication skills, and the ability to work collaboratively and energetically with diverse groups of people are required. The Director is expected to have a graduate degree (Ph.D. preferred) in a field of science and appropriate administrative experience. This is a twelve-month administrative position reporting to the Office of the Dean of Faculty. Search will continue until position is filled. Starting salary commensurate with qualifications and experience; excellent benefits. Please submit a resume, cover letter stating salary requirements, and the names, titles and telephone numbers of three professional references to: Donna D. Willson, Director of Human Resources, Trinity College, 300 Summit Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106. Review of applications will begin March 1, 2002 and will continue until an appointment is made. Trinity College is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. Applicants with disabilities should request any needed accommodation in order to participate in the application process. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 13) CONTACT INFORMATION To submit an item to E-MAIL NEWS contact: editor@awg.org To submit advertising contact: ads@awg.org To change your address or be removed from the list contact: office@awg.org