ALEXANDRIA, VA. -- In the 1970s, scientists believed they were on the verge of ushering
in a new era of practical earthquake prediction. This optimism was shortlived, and major
earthquakes continue to devastate unprepared regions. In the March issue of
Geotimes, Christopher Scholz, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, recounts the
checkered history of this field of scientific investigation in his article, "Whatever Happened
to Earthquake Prediction?".
The enthusiasm of the '70s over such developments as the dilatancy-diffusion theory
(which claimed that earthquakes could be predicted by monitoring specific phenomena that
precede them) spawned national earthquake predication programs in both the United States
and Japan. Two decades later, both programs have failed to accurately predict earthquakes in
their respective countries. In California, two damaging earthquakes have occurred on little-
known faults, and the Kobe earthquake in Japan "has given the Japanese a much bigger
hangover, exposing the lopsidedness of their program," says Scholz.
Scholz contends that it is possible to estimate earthquake probabilities for rapidly
moving faults like the San Andreas. Investing in research to predict quakes in regions where
these disasters recur about every 100 years can improve mitigation efforts, such as retrofitting
substandard buildings and emergency planning.
But short-term prediction is also a viable field of study. "There is no doubt in my
mind that many earthquakes are preceded by real precursors, but their causative processes
remain murky, mainly because we lack good observation," says Scholz. "The scientific
challenge in earthquake prediction lies in understanding the mechanisms behind those
precursory phenomena."
In another story, Dale A. Springer, associate professor at Bloomsburg
University (Pa.), searched 11 mainstream newspapers and magazines to see what interests the
public about geology. In her article, "Geology in the Popular Press: Paleontology's Greatest
Hits," she shows that topics such as natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, and volcanoes) and
the impact of minerals on human health are of immediate and vital interest to the public. The public also
loves fossils and dinosaurs -- paleontology received more press than any other geologic
subdiscipline.
But does the public understand the science that the press delivers and is the
information accurate? Or is the coverage merely pseudoscience? Springer urges geologists to
get involved in scientific journalism and basic education to combat pseudoscience and nurture
the public's natural curiosity about science.
Active participation in the public sphere is part of the earth scientist's responsibility
to society, argues Robert Frodeman in the third feature, "Rethinking Geology's Role."
Frodeman, a philosopher and earth scientist, foresees a revision of the old perception of
geologists as merely "people who dug into the Earth in order to supply raw materials for the
industrial machine." As society becomes increasingly aware of the limits of natural resources
and the vulnerability of the planet, earth science will become inherently political -- "political
in the sense that earth science information and perspectives are fundamental to community
debates over the course of our common life," says Frodeman. But earth scientists must learn
how to translate their science into a societal and political context.
