Mary Anne Holmes

Surface Textural Analysis of Quartz Sand Grains from ODP Site 918 Off the Southeast Coast of Greenland Suggests Glaciation of Southern Greenland at 11 Ma

Shipboard analysis of the 1,183-m sedimentary section recovered at Site 918 in the Irminger Basin during Ocean Drilling Program Leg 152 revealed material of glacial origin (diamictons, ice-rafted debris (IRD) and dropstones) as deep as 543 m below sea floor (bsf). The sediment containing the deepest dropstone was biostratigraphically dated shipboard as approximately 7 Ma, pushing back the date for the onset of glaciation on southern Greenland by 5 Ma. Thin layers of fine sand were found as much as 60 m deeper in the core, raising the possibility of an even earlier date for glaciation. To determine the sedimentary history of these deeper sand layers, the surface textures on quartz grains from eleven cores bracketing the interval of interest were analyzed by scanning electron microscope. The results suggest that the grains in the 60-m interval below the deepest dropstone have a glacial history. At that level, an 11-Ma Sr-isotope date was obtained from planktonic foraminifers. This late Miocene timing is supported biostratigraphically by both nanofossil and foraminifer assemblages, indicating a new minimum age for the onset of glaciation on southern Greenland and in the North Atlantic.

Obstacles to the recruitment of minorities into the geosciences: A call to action

INTRODUCTION In 2008, >85,000 Hispanic, Black (U.S. National Science Foundation [NSF] term), and American Indian/Native Alaskan students, collectively called underrepresented minorities, received bachelor degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Of that number, only 192 Hispanic, 89 Black, and 28 American Indian/Native Alaskan students (NSF, 2010; Fig. 1) earned degrees in geoscience. Between 2000 and 2008, underrepresented minorities earned 16%–17% of STEM degrees and only 5%–7% of geoscience degrees. The lack of geoscience undergraduates has been attributed to many factors (Velasco and Velasco, 2010), especially precollege exposure (Levine et al., 2007). Most college-bound students do not study geoscience in high school, and this lack of exposure cuts across ethnic and socioeconomic divisions. Thus, high school non-preparation does not explain the discrepancy in percentages of white students versus minority students earning geoscience degrees. For more than a decade, NSF program directors have been concerned about the lack of underrepresented minorities in the geosciences. A 2000 NSF workshop (see Prendeville and Elton, 2001) led to the NSF “Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences” initiative, which provided funds for programs that had the potential to recruit underrepresented minorities into the geosciences. Successful approaches to recruiting a more diverse geoscience undergraduate population are described in the Dec. 2007 Journal of Geoscience Education (v. 55, http://nagt.org/nagt/ jge/abstracts/dec07.html) and include attention to the geoscience pipeline (Levine et al., 2007). Subsequent articles show that summer research experiences (Hallar et al., 2010) and paired programs with historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) (Stassun et al., 2010) are effective. We agree that a multifaceted approach is necessary in order to attract a diverse student body. In 2008, 47% of U.S. births were non-white minorities (Hamilton et al., 2010). These children will begin entering college around 2027; geoscientists need to start attracting them now in order to maintain healthy departments and provide geoscientists to the workforce in the future. ATTRACTORS TO GEOSCIENCE MAJORS With little pre-college exposure, what attracts anyone to the geosciences? Holmes and O’Connell (2005) identify three main attractors, accounting for 80% of geoscientists: (1) positive undergraduate experiences, (2) love of the outdoors, and (3) family influences. Here we examine why these attractors may not be working as well for underrepresented minority students and suggest ways geoscientists can be more proactive in their efforts to recruit a representative student body.

Does gender bias influence awards given by societies

AGU is a participant in a U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF)–funded project called Advancing Ways of Awarding Recognition in Disciplinary Societies (AWARDS), which seeks to examine whether gender bias affects selection of recipients of society awards. AGU is interested in learning why there is a higher proportion of female recipients of service and education awards over the past 2 decades. Combined with a lower rate of receipt of research awards, these results suggest that implicit (subconscious) bias in favor of male candidates still influences awardee selection. Six other professional societies (American Chemical Society, American Mathematical Society, American Society of Anesthesiologists, Mathematical Association of America, Society for Neuroscience, and Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics) are participating in the project. Volunteers from each participant society attended an Association for Women in Science (AWIS)–sponsored workshop in May 2010 to examine data and review literature on best practices for fair selection of society awardees. A draft proposal for implementing these practices will be brought before the AGU Council and the Honors and Recognition Committee at their upcoming meetings.

Academic Specialties in U.S. Are Shifting; Hiring of Women Geoscientists Is Stagnating

Women have been receiving a greater proportion of the bachelors and masters degrees in the geosciences over the last 10 years, reaching near 40% in 2000 (latest data available), while receiving only 28% of the Ph.D.s that year. Women are now only 20% of assistant professors at Ph.D.-granting institutions, a proportion that has not changed in the last 4 years. As part of a larger study to find what key barriers continue to prevent larger numbers of women geoscientists from becoming academics, data have been compiled from the National Science Board [NSB, 2002] and the American Geological Institutes (AGI) Directory of Geoscience Departments [Claudy, 2001] on geoscience specialty by gender. The data are broken down by the specialty of the Ph.D., and compared to hiring rates at Ph.D.-granting institutions over the last 10 years. These institutions are the focus because they are the source of future Ph.D.s, and diversity of their faculty is critical to assuring diversity and consequent intellectual vigor and strength of our future academic workforce. The data reveal both a slight shift in the subdisciplines of all geoscientists employed in tenure-track positions at Ph.D.-granting institutions, and that hiring of women into tenure-track positions in specific subdisciplines has not kept pace with their Ph.D. production during that time.

Where Are the Women Geoscientist Professors

Nearly 50 geo- and social scientists recently gathered in Washington, D.C., for a workshop on women in the geosciences. The two-fold purpose was to compile data on the status of women in the geosciences and to arrive at a consensus on strategies to increase the proportion of women and their diversity in the field. Participants spanned 4 decades of experience, including both genders, and represented many types of academic institutions, from high school to private, bachelors degree-granting colleges to public and private Research I institutions. Two social scientists who specialize in women-in-science issues also participated.

Retreating to advance women geoscience faculty

Seventeen women geoscientists from New England, New York, and New Jersey assembled for a writing retreat at Boston Colleges Connors Family Retreat and Conference Center, set on 80 pastoral acres on the outskirts of Boston. Funded through the National Science Foundation ADVANCE program, the retreat had two objectives: to facilitate writing and to develop a supportive community. It succeeded on both accounts. Although new to science, retreats of this sort have long been a highly sought after experience for writers in other disciplines. The potential benefits for scientists, in particular, women scientists, are great. Writing is a cornerstone of our work, yet we struggle to find time for it, juggling the demands of students, teaching, family, domestic chores, and research.

Reply [to “Comment on ‘Academic specialties in U.S. are shifting: Hiring of women geoscientists is stagnating’” by John C. Steinmetz]

We appreciate John C. Steinmetzs comments and would like to add that we reported numbers of women at different types of institutions, but offered no explanations for the numbers. We still lack critical data that would enable geoscientists to explain the numbers, but we do hope that the numbers generate discussion, self-examination, and more (and appropriate) data collection on this issue. Missing data that might help explain the numbers include, “How many women are in the applicant pool for a given academic/survey/industry/government position?” If an applicant pool does reflect the degree recipient pool appropriate to the position, but hiring rates are lower, then the kink in the pipeline is occurring at hiring. Is this due to low numbers of offers being made to women, or to women turning offers down? Each institution can collect and examine this data to find its unique answers and appropriate solutions.