PAGES Magazine articles

Rajeev Saraswat1 and Britta Jensen2

2nd Young Scientists Meeting, Goa, India, 11-12 February 2013

Back in 2009, PAGES experimented with a different type of meeting for the first time – the inaugural Young Scientists Meeting (YSM) in Corvallis, USA. Recently several 1st YSM alumni worked together with PAGES to build on the success of that inaugural meeting with another YSM. The 2nd YSM took place from the 11-12 February 2013 at the International Centre Goa in India. It brought together graduate students, post-doctoral fellows and early career scientists from around the globe to share their research, network, present and attend workshops and panel discussions designed to address the specific challenges and opportunities facing early career paleoscientists. A total of 79 participants from over 27 countries attended the meeting.

Participants were welcomed by S. Rajan, Director of the National Center for Antarctic and Ocean Research, the Goan host institution. Thorsten Kiefer, PAGES Executive Director, then outlined the rationale behind the meeting and expressed the hope that the YSM would foster multi-disciplinary, international interaction and collaboration amongst the next generation of paleoscientists.

The meeting was structured around seven themes: Climate Forcings; Regional Climate Dynamics; Global Earth-System Dynamics; Human-Climate-Ecosystem Interactions; Chronology; Proxy Development, Calibration and Validation; and Modeling.

Twenty participants gave oral presentations and many others presented posters around each of these themes. A written peer-feedback activity provided presenters with valuable feedback on their presentation and ways to improve. The best presentations received an award, including one year of free online access to the Nature Geoscience journal: Ilham Bouimetarhan (Bremen, Germany) and Vladimir Matskovsky (Moscow, Russia) received prizes for the best oral presentations, and Jesper Björklund (Göteberg, Sweden), Gayatri Kathayat (Xi’an, China), and Timothée Ourbak (Niamey, Niger), for the best poster presentations.

In the keynote talk Alan Mix of Oregon State University reflected back upon his career as a climate scientist, which began during a time of discovery defined by a paucity of data - a stark contrast to the present, with its wealth of data and the commensurate need for new approaches to interpreting it. He emphasized the need for more interaction among paleoscientists and the increased need for more quantitative climate data, which can be better utilized by the modeling community.

The three “The Art of” sessions were a newly framed item in the YSM program and aimed to provide young scientists with practical information about data sharing, reviewing and communicating science (see the following articles).

In “The Art of Sharing Data”, David Anderson from the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, and National Climatic Data Center, highlighted the importance of sharing data, and in particular, making data publicly available through archiving. He discussed the data-rich world we live in where the sharing and archiving of data can increase the visibility of an individual’s research tremendously, and how easy accessibility to datasets will encourage the community to develop new and novel quantitative approaches to interpreting them.

In “The Art of Communicating Science” Gavin Schmidt from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies suggested ways to convey science to different audiences and how to tackle controversies and criticism. He recommended the use of simple language with common examples and as many pictures and graphs as possible, instead of tables and technical jargon.

“The Art of Reviewing” panel included Alicia Newton, Editor of Nature Geoscience; Denis-Didier Rousseau, Co-Editor-in-Chief of Climate of the Past; Chris Turney, Asian and Australasian Regional Editor for the Journal of Quaternary Science; and moderator Alberto Reyes, of Queen’s University, Ireland. They fielded many questions from the audience, addressing various topics such as signing reviews vs. double-blind reviews and what editors expect in a good review. It became clear during this session that many YSM participants did not feel their training had prepared them adequately for the peer-review process.

During breakout sessions, participants divided into groups and deliberated on four challenges facing young paleoscientists. More detailed summaries of the breakout and “The Art of” sessions are reported elsewhere in this issue of PAGES news. A key theme emerged across all groups: Many of the big important issues and problems facing early-career paleoscientists are similar the world over and may be dealt with through international efforts. However, just as many are specifically local, and therefore will require local solutions.

There was, of course, plenty of opportunity for social interaction with one another, as well as with the organizers and guests. Communal meals, the icebreaker, and a dinner on one of the famous Goan casino boats featuring a Bollywood show, gave participants an opportunity to bond with each other while enjoying Indian culture and food.

To conclude, participants thanked PAGES for taking the initiative to hold the YSM, and requested such meetings be convened more often. We would also like to gratefully thank the generous sponsors, listed below, whose contributions directly assisted many young scientists travel to and attend the meeting.

Sponsors included:

The Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India; National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research, India; US National Science Foundation; and the Swiss National Science Foundation; Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research; System for Analysis, Research and Training; IGBP, Brazil Regional Office; National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, USA; National Institute of Ocean Technology, India; Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services, India; Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, India; Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Switzerland; and the International Association of Sedimentologists.

affiliations

1Micropaleontology Laboratory, National Institute of Oceanography, Goa, India; rsaraswatnio.org

2School of Geography, Archaeology, Palaeoecology, Queen’s University, Belfast

Heidi Roop1, G. Martínez-Méndez2 and K. Mills3

Figure 1: The use of imagery is an effective way to convey messages to the general public. Which illustration would you choose for a public lecture? Image sources: US National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In a true test of modern-day communication, the participants at the 2nd PAGES Young Scientists Meeting traveled virtually from the 26°C heat of a Goan afternoon to a brisk -2°C morning in New York City to join Gavin Schmidt (NASA, USA) for a lesson in the art of science communication. During this session, Gavin then delved into the nuts and bolts of why scientists are ethically obligated to publicly communicate their science and how communicating it well is an increasingly challenging but important aspect of our profession. This article highlights Gavin’s tips for effective public communication, some common traps scientists fall into, and tasks or next steps our community needs to take to improve the public’s access to accurate, high-quality scientific information.

Despite the general public's interest in science, it is often hard to know where to go for accurate (and understandable) scientific information. In a world of rapid and wide dissemination of knowledge and opinions, it is increasingly important to communicate outside the scientific community. Not only do we have an obligation to communicate broadly, due to the typically high proportion of science funding coming from the taxpayer, but broad communication is essential to avoid misuse or misinterpretations of our work and to slow the propagation of scientific misconceptions.

Crucially, many of the important scientific concepts that need to be conveyed are simply not “news”. For example, the physics of greenhouses gases will undoubtedly never make the headlines yet it is a fundamental building block to being literate in the issue of climate change. Communicating these types of facts requires scientists to step beyond traditional avenues of communication. Gavin emphasizes that we, as a community, need to engage with social media and web-based communications, in addition to traditional means of communication (e.g. press releases, interviews and essays). People increasingly rely on the internet as a primary source of information, which means there is a need to provide more accurate and appropriate information online through scientists’ blogs, videos, and social media platforms. We need to use this diverse set of tools to not only convey our expertise but importantly, to engage with different audiences.

The challenge of clearly communicating the intended scientific message to the public is not insurmountable but requires an understanding of what works and what does not work. Falling into typical science communication traps can quickly turn an interview, article or outreach event into a counterproductive debate or an unintended source of misleading information. Here are some common traps and points on what does not work:

• Avoid talking too much about technical details and avoid technical debates

• Avoid using jargon that you don’t take time to explain

• Avoid scientific stereotypes, e.g. arrogance or elitism

• Avoid triggering issues of free speech, data access, and secrecy

• Do not respond poorly to criticism by getting angry or taking it personally

• Always distinguish between personal opinion and scientific consensus

• Try to understand the context in which your statements will be heard or read

• Try to defuse pseudo-debates but do not ignore them

• Avoid sensationalism and over-extrapolated conclusions

In order to get your audience to engage with your science, you have to engage with your audience. Several easy tips that can improve the strength and resonance of your message include:

• Listen to what your audience is interested in or concerned about

• Use imagery and animations. These can often create a deeper connection for the audience (e.g. see Fig. 1)

• Make it personal: use personal, relatable stories that remind people that we are “normal”. Personal anecdotes often generate excitement and engagement

• Always remember the big picture and the reasons why you are a scientist

• Be a credible and trustworthy guide and take advantage of the generally held feeling of public admiration towards scientists

• Promote the investigative nature of science

• Provide accessible context outside of the technical literature

• Always underscore what can and cannot be concluded from your work

As mentioned above, we live in an increasingly connected world with growing access to information (and misinformation). Our collective task is to ensure access to appropriate and understandable scientific information. The key to success relies on a collaborative approach in which we all rally together and begin to communicate the importance of science and the scientific process. En masse we can begin to change the public perception of science, and can contribute to developing a more scientifically literate society. Making use of the above tips, learned from the frontlines of public science communication, can help to initiate this process and move our community in the right direction. Now it is time to get blogging, writing, and tweeting!

For further reading, see Gavin’s recommendation: skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf

affiliations

1Antarctic Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; h.roopgns.cri.nz

2MARUM Center for Marine Environmental Sciences, University of Bremen, Germany

3Department of Geography, Loughborough University, UK

Rajani Panchang1, A. Govin2 and C. Omuombo3

Ever since the publication of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society by Henry Oldenburg (1665, Fig. 1), scientists have acknowledged the importance of relaying research findings to a wider scientific community. Currently, publishing scientific findings in peer-reviewed journals, brands the research work as “credible”. These peer-reviewed scholarly articles improve the quality of science and are used as a metric for scientific performance, which is essential for career advancement. The Program Committee of the 2nd PAGES YSM recognized the need to contribute to building capacity in the art of reviewing among young paleo-scientists. To this end, editors from prominent paleoscience journals, namely Nature Geoscience (Alicia Newton), Journal of Quaternary Science (Chris Turney) and Climate of the Past (Denis-Didier Rousseau) were invited to be part of a panel discussion highlighting the aims and process of peer-reviewing.

The discussion commenced with the importance of peer reviewing in science and the responsibility journal editors have to maintain the integrity and quality of science. Accordingly, the nominated reviewers bear the responsibility of scrutinizing the quality and clarity of the scientific content in the manuscript and providing constructive criticism to help authors improve it. From the editor’s perspective, feedback on a manuscript should indicate if the conclusions are new, if the study builds upon the existing literature, and above all assess if the evidence presented supports the conclusions.

On the question of “How to differentiate a poor review from a good one?”, the panelists’ collective reply was: A good review demands useful and constructive criticism that identifies the strengths and weaknesses of a manuscript and gives recommendations with supporting justifications. As a reviewer, never go by dogmas and don’t reject new ideas, if they are supported with data and systematic methodology. If the work is promising, but has not attained its best form, insist that authors take on the burden of more work to justify their novel ideas and research. Always be polite, objective and respectful to the author(s), regardless of whether you recommend the editor accepts or rejects the manuscript.

A major issue for editors is finding suitable reviewers, as often the best-known experts in the field lack time. Nevertheless, it is fine to politely turn down the opportunity of reviewing a paper if you lack the time or the expertise the paper demands, or in the event of conflicting research interests. On the other hand, if you agree to do a review, you should keep your word and not decline the responsibility after several months of doing nothing with the manuscript.

The experienced referees on the panel reminded young scientists to be aware of the time pressures involved in reviewing. A thorough review of a paper takes a minimum of two to three days depending on one’s efficiency and ability. Anticipating this pressure allows one to set aside ample time to read the paper and let the ideas sink in for a few days, before writing the review. This process helps sharpen one’s ideas and thinking on the issues covered in the manuscript.

While it remains important that the authors cite the most recent papers relevant to the study, it is equally important to check if the authors cite the original pioneer works. In case you do not have access to the references the authors cite, you can ask for the papers from the editors rather than provide a poorly informed review.

Therefore, working on the review of a manuscript ahead of the deadline allows time to build initial impressions, verify cited references and reserve sufficient time for constructive feedback, steps that ensure a thorough review. Finally, submitting the report on time also ensures a smooth and efficient evaluation, and makes the new results swiftly available, to the benefit of science overall.

Ethics are a critical aspect in the art of reviewing, and an area in which young reviewers may need to develop. As a reviewer, one has the moral responsibility to put aside one’s own research and publication interests, be honest and fair with the authors and consider the interests of the respective journal. The same is true for an editor or reviewer while dealing with conflicting reviews or accepting risky ideas. A test of one’s integrity as a reviewer is whether or not you are able to put your name to the review, i.e. disclose your identity.

To ensure the editor can build an adequate assessment of the reviews, it is crucial that the reviewer clearly states which topics are outside his or her area of expertise. This allows the editor to identify additional experts, if needed. One should not shy away from providing detailed reviews, so that a paper can be improved to near perfection. This can include providing grammar and language amendments if possible. However, the main task of a reviewer is to evaluate the science of a study and not necessarily correct the language of the manuscript. Instead of spending time correcting spelling mistakes at the expense of evaluating the scientific content, the reviewer can mention the need for copy-editing to the editor.

Although demanding and time-consuming, reviewing manuscripts provides a unique opportunity to improve one’s critical thinking and writing skills, stay updated on cutting-edge research techniques and ensure the quality and integrity of published science. This interactive session on “The Art of Reviewing” brought to light that about half of the ~80 early-career participants had reviewed papers either on behalf of their supervisors or directly for journals; however, most of them had never received formal training in reviewing. Consequently, the young scientists unanimously expressed the wish for formal training in reviewing as part of their doctoral education.

To conclude, the guiding line for a scientist should be “publish or perish”! But at the end of this session, we found a new one: “Peer review: love it or hate it, it’s an integral part of every scientist’s life. (Welsh 2010). So do not panic if an editor picks you to be the chosen one!

notes

Additional information on the art of reviewing is available in published articles, e.g. Smith 1990; Provenzale and Stanley 2006; Rosenfeld 2010, and on these dedicated websites:

users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/hcd/reviewing.html

bcl.hamilton.ie/~barak/how-to-review.html

elsevier.com/reviewers/home

councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3331

affiliations

1Geology & Palaeontology Group, Agharkar Research Institute, Pune, India; rajanipanchanggmail.com

2MARUM Center for Marine Environmental Sciences, University of Bremen, Germany

3Department of Geology, University of Nairobi, Kenya

references

Oldenburg H (1665) Philosophical Transactions 1: 1-22

Provenzale JM, Stanley RJ (2006) Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology 34: 92-99

Rosenfeld RM (2010) Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 142: 472-486

Smith AJ (1990) Computer 23: 65-71

Welsh J (2013) Discoblog: Year's Best Peer Review Comments: Papers That "Suck the Will to Live", blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2010/12/15/years-best-peer-review-comments-papers-that-suck-the-will-to-live/

Aurora Elmore1, F. Lehner2 and J. Franke2

Figure 1: Sharing and combining data and model simulations allows for a better understanding of past climate variability. Temperature anomalies relative to 1961-1990 in a reconstruction (Mann et al. 2009) and a Last Millennium simulation with a comprehensive coupled model (Community Earth System Model). White areas indicate no reconstruction data; the same areas have been masked in the model output for comparability.

At the PAGES Young Scientists Meeting, 11-12 February 2013, in Goa, India, 79 young researchers from around the world gathered to discuss research, to network, and to exchange ideas for the future of climate research. Initiated by a talk on “The Art of Data Sharing” given by David Anderson, head of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a lively discussion arose on the benefits and potential of data sharing for future research.

Fortunately, many researchers already upload their data and computer code to an Internet database to be available for future projects. Therefore, a wealth of databases and software exist that are open and easily accessible (see Box 1). These include data from classical proxy archives such as tree rings, ice cores, lake and marine sediments, as well as model output, reanalysis, observations and a multitude of free algorithms, scripts and software packages.

Not only can researchers use these archives to compare with their own new data, but also groundbreaking studies seeing the large-scale picture can result from compiling or reanalyzing existing data sets (e.g. Lisiecki and Raymo 2005; Mann et al. 2008; Andrews et al. 2012). These kinds of data compilation projects are time-intensive. However, when fed back to the database, the resulting data can be highly beneficial for the paleoscience community as it avoids duplication of effort. Data compilation efforts can also be funding-efficient, as some funding agencies have already requested proposals specifically based on that approach. Some general ideas for future compilation-style research include time-slice reconstructions and comparison between transient model simulations and sensitivity experiments conducted by different institutes.

So, why do not all researchers share their data?

The idea of being “scooped” seems to be one of the most important fears preventing researchers from uploading their published data; this seems to be particularly important for young researchers who are working towards establishing their careers and thus cannot afford to not be credited for their work. But in reality, such cases occur rarely and the vast majority of scientists sharing their data experience only benefits from it, including more citations and often even additional co-authorships.

Another barrier to uploading research data seems to be the author's worry about data being misused or misrepresented. Providing detailed meta-information about the data and corresponding error bars greatly reduces the risk of inappropriate use of data. However, the largest hindrance seems to result from confusion about which data repository to use and how to format the data. To this end, many data repositories have helpful “read-me” files and staff support to help with the uploading, so that the researcher hardly has to spend much additional effort.

Some journals and funding agencies are now mandating that authors archive data that appear in publications and discussants at the YSM were united in their hope that this trend towards open access continues.

One way to encourage and credit data sharing in the future could be in the form of a “data citation index”. Usually, data compilation studies do not cite every individual data paper that went into the compilation - mainly to prevent the bibliography from exploding. A “data citation index”, following the example of the classical citation index for papers, could provide an efficient way of crediting the papers underlying data compilation studies without generating lengthy bibliographies.

With limitless potential for compilation studies to generate truly innovative science and the relative ease of uploading data, we hope many readers consider using these great resources and, of course, helping them to grow.

affiliations

1Department of Geography, Durham University, UK; aurora.elmoredurham.ac.uk

2Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Switzerland

references

Andrews T et al. (2012) Geophysical Research Letters 39, doi: 10.1029/2012GL051607

Lisiecki LE, ME Raymo (2005) Paleoceanography 20: 1-17

Mann ME et al. (2008) PNAS 205: 13252-13257

Mann ME et al. (2009) Science 326: 1256-1260

Sylvia Dee1 and Francesco Muschitiello2

How can we improve model-based estimates and predictions? How can we improve the production of paleo data? How can we better constrain past rates of change in the Earth system? These questions, among others, were identified as key priorities for future paleoscience during our breakout sessions at the YSM.

We identified that model-based climate sensitivity estimates and the ability to correctly capture climate feedbacks, abrupt transitions, and threshold behavior in models are key to predicting climate and associated changes. Integrated earth-system modeling with improved feedback interactions will be required to study whole-earth system dynamics.

Furthermore, assessing climate model performance requires better datasets of high-resolution proxy reconstructions: We need more high-quality data from under-represented regions. We also need new proxies for several climate variables. Also high on our wish list are solid constraints upon previously unresolved climate system components such as clouds and aerosols. We require better solar and volcanic forcing reconstructions, and we should strive to understand the underlying causes of discrepancies between the different forcing reconstructions available.

To improve the quality of our proxy networks we need to employ replication, high-resolution dating, statistical analysis and multi-proxy approaches in our research. Data uncertainty estimates should always be clearly stated. Process studies and controlled experiments must be used to establish regional calibrations and transfer functions to allow proxy-based reconstructions to capture not only high-frequency climate variability, but also a quantifiable climatic parameter such as temperature or precipitation.

Finally, we need to compile datasets and make them available in a quality-controlled, well-documented and easy-to-use form. Strict formats for “big data” should be employed in a globally acknowledged framework. The field could vastly benefit from larger collaboration with computer software engineers and informatics science to improve efficiency and manageability of earth science datasets.

affiliations

1Department of Geological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA; sdeeusc.edu

2Department of Geological Sciences, Stockholm University, Sweden

Ilham Bouimetarhan1 and Hans Christian Steen-Larsen2

Dear policy makers and funders of science,

We understand your need to base your decisions and investments on stronger arguments of the important role that paleo-research plays in international efforts to understand and emphasize the social, economic, and geopolitical implications of Earth’s changing climate. We are also acutely aware of many unanswered questions and substantial uncertainties that currently exist, and always will exist, in paleo-research, as in any other field of science. However, it is now evident that better projections of future climate and environmental change, which form the basis of decisions on national and international greenhouse gas emission policies, require consultation with information from Earth’s past.

Repeatedly during its history, Earth’s climate has changed abruptly within just a few decades. Climatic variability including changes in the magnitude and frequency of extreme events such as droughts and floods has often had a devastating impact on local societies, and events in the future are likely to bring greater environmental risks as the environment is already subject to substantial stress. Furthermore, due to the increased complexity of modern societies extreme events are likely to become more costly, as recently illustrated by Hurricane Sandy’s effect on New York City.

Paleoscientists are undertaking enormous efforts to assess the high complexity of Earth’s climate system and gain a better understanding of the general forces controlling global climate change. Integrating local and regional climate information from marine and terrestrial environments all over the world has allowed, for example, the identification of important feedbacks in the climate system; this is crucial if we are to avoid being surprised by abrupt climatic events. The results of this research have helped us to better understand the role human activities play in causing a large part of the changes in the Earth’s climate system, namely the significant increase in global temperatures. Moreover, many paleoclimate results are now being effectively assimilated with climate models in order to provide better future projections and predictions of potential impacts likely to affect people in the short-term and in coming decades.

While paleoscientific research is able to highlight some of the environmental risks threatening our planet, much remains to be learned, and this kind of research will still need more financial investment in order to thoroughly examine other scientific questions. While it might not provide direct applications, or solutions for engineering a better future, paleoscientific research makes a substantial contribution to constraining the possible scenarios of future environmental and climatic changes. We encourage you therefore to let paleoscience evidence guide you towards wise decisions on policy and science funding in the context of the high priority challenges facing humanity.

Yours sincerely,

Ilham Bouimetarhan and Hans Christian Steen-Larsen

On behalf of the PAGES Young Scientists 2013

affiliations

1MARUM-Center for Marine Environmental Sciences, University of Bremen, Germany; bouimetarhanuni-bremen.de

2Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA

Heidi Roop1 and Elisabeth Dietze2

At the 2nd YSM there was consensus among the young international paleoscientists that there is a great need to better develop skills for communicating with different types of non-academic audiences. Clear and effective communication to the public is becoming increasingly important as current and future climatic and environmental changes are frequently a major focus in the media and politics. However, for the paleoscience community there remains the challenge of properly conveying the concept of past change on longer timescales. Facilitating better public understanding of the scientific process is required to break down barriers and have objective discussions, especially regarding the issue of future climate change.

A productive discussion at the YSM about how to address the challenges we face in communicating paleoscience resulted in two potential solutions:

First, as scientists, we need to be proactive in making our research available in our local communities. Creating connections with internet platforms, classrooms, media outlets and other informal science education venues can be highly productive and rewarding, but also difficult and time consuming to develop. To address this problem and to facilitate paleoscience communication, we propose to link with the PAGES scientist database and outline researchers availability for specific outreach activities (e.g. classroom visits, blog articles, Skype calls, laboratory tours, radio interviews). This type of additional database should be communicated through educational networks such as Polar Education International (PEI). The ultimate hope is that this freely accessible database can begin building lasting relationships between the public and local researchers by making it easy for the public to find local scientists. An encouraging example is the Social Media Knowledge Exchange (www.smke.org), which provides a platform for early career scientists in history and archeology to share their research with non-academic audiences.

Second, the current lack of formal training opportunities in science communication is a major obstacle preventing the effective communication of our research. Coursework and other training opportunities, beyond short workshops, are needed to instruct researchers how to effectively and concisely communicate the significance of their research to any audience. In a highly inter-connected world, it is critical that scientists develop an appropriate level of fluency and understanding of how to use communication tools ranging from social media to informal writing.

Ultimately, communicating our scientific results should become a regular and professionally recognized part of the scientific process. Developing the skills to effectively share our science will undoubtedly increase our broader impacts, and PAGES is in a unique position to facilitate this development in the paleoscience community. Already the YSM has stimulated discussion, and we hope that this dialogue can continue in the broader PAGES network to strengthen and broaden our science communication skills into the future.

affiliations

1Antarctic Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; h.roopgns.cri.nz

2Climate Dynamics and Landscape Evolution, German Research Centre for Geosciences, Germany

Rajani Panchang1 and Julie Richey2

The breakout sessions at the 2nd YSM proved to be an extremely useful exercise that resulted in concrete suggestions for future directions for PAGES and the broader scientific community. The topic of our group was discussed in two subgroups by a total of 21 participants from 12 countries.

One of the key recommendations was that future paleoscience students need better computational skills. In the early days of paleoclimate research, students could turn 50 analyses into a dissertation, but with modern methodological advances, students can now produce hundreds or thousands of geochemical measurements. In addition to expertise in micropaleontology, palynology, organic geochemistry, etc., students need to have the quantitative skills to statistically analyze that data, and effectively put it in the context of a wealth of other paleoclimate archives.

Paleoclimate modelers should have more training in geosciences so that they can better understand the value and limitations of proxy records. Conversely, those generating proxy records need to be capable of understanding and using model results to make proxy-model comparisons.

Students should be encouraged to complete a small research project before opting for a doctoral program so that they can assess their interest as well as aptitude for research. This could be offered as a Bachelor’s or Master’s dissertation, as is already common practice in some countries, e.g. the USA. This also led to the idea of offering supervisors more incentives (e.g. research assistance or teaching time exemption) for investing time and energy in short-term (i.e. masters-level) research students. Inspired by the panel discussion on peer reviewing, it was also suggested that reviewing should be made a formal part of graduate education.

Over time English has become the single global language bridging international language borders, and thus its knowledge facilitates the effective communication of science. Accordingly, some participants from countries in which English is not the first language did express the need for formal training in reading and writing English. They also wished that some of their science education had been in English.

Earth science is currently not part of the required curriculum in many countries, and the need and importance for elevating earth science education at the primary and secondary school level was expressed. Regarding the much more advanced career stage paleoclimatologists, participants expressed the concern that “paleoclimate” is not as lucrative as mining and petroleum! Although not related to education, the breakout group argued that better incentives and job opportunities will be key conditions to ensure the success of the next generation of paleoscientists.

affiliations

1Agharkar Research Institute, Pune, India; rajanipanchanggmail.com

2U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, USA

Dorthe Dahl-Jensen1, Emilie Capron2 and Emma Stone3

The EU Framework Programme 7 Collaborative Project Past4Future aims to generate knowledge from climate change during past interglacials that can improve our ability to predict the future.