|
|
|
The CIDER Workshop brought together 77 researchers and educators from geochemistry, geodynamics, geomagnetism, mineral physics and seismology: http://www.deep-earth.org/list03.html), to define the function and form of a multi-disciplinary Institute for deep Earth studies. The primary goal of the institute would be to identify new approaches to the major unsolved problems of the deep Earth, and to foster, particularly in the next generation of geoscientists, the capability to interact across traditional disciplinary boundaries at an unprecedented level.
Models for CIDER structure
The concept and vision for CIDER were presented at the beginning of the meeting (and once again at its mid-point) by Romanowicz. She presented as working model, to be adapted to the needs of our community, that of the Institute for Theoretical Physics (ITP) in Santa Barbara (see notes on webpage). Another possible model is provided by the IMA (Institute for Mathematics and its Applications, in Minnesotta). These two institutes hold long programs throughout the year focused on various timely topics. Another possible model is that of the Summer School in Geophysical Fluid Dynamics held yearly at WHOI. Romanowicz noted that a full blown year-round Institute would cost about $2.5M/year.
Romanowicz also announced that a proposal submitted to the ITP for a CIDER Summer Program in July'04 had been accepted. This program would serve as a test-bed for how CIDER might work. On the first day of the workshop, Dziewonski presented a strawman plan for the Summer'04 CIDER ITP program (see notes) , prepared by himself and Romanowicz, with the help of Steer. Co. members Kellogg, Hart and Weidner. This program proposed 2 weeks of tutorials (3 days in each of the 4 main disciplines) geared at about 30 advanced graduate students and post-docs, followed by 2 weeks of activities in a workshop format, in which a dozen of students would stay on and work with senior members of the community on the construction of a Reference Earth Model (REM). This idea was proposed by the seismologists who took the initiative to submit the proposal to ITP on a short deadline, in January'03, which explains its seismology-centered focus.
Participants in the Marconi workshop were asked to think about the long term format and scope for the Institute. Is the perceived need for better cross-education among the disciplines in deep earth research valid? What key cross-disciplinary research topics can be identified for CIDER programs? Should CIDER activities be limited to a few weeks summer program centered on tutorials (i.e. what is most suitable for our community) ? What other activities besides short courses, tutorials, multidisciplinary workshops should CIDER engage in (i.e. databases, relationship to other initiatives such as CCIG, COMPRES..).
Participants were also asked to comment on the strawman Summer'04 program and to propose how to improve it.
Presentations and Discussions
The workshop featured review talks) in each discipline as well as short presentations on selected topics. The speakers were instructed to focus on "what we know and what we don't know", rather than their own latest research, and to highlight important research issues that require a multidisciplinary approach for further progress. There was ample time for discussion in each session. Each day was organized around one of the disciplines by members of the CIDER Steering Committee, specialists in that discipline. Copies of the presentations will be posted on the CIDER Website shortly.
Afternoon break-out sessions gave participants the opportunity to discuss these issues.
The program of the last 1.5 day of the workshop was modified to allow for a plenary discussion of the scope and format of the Institute in general (Wednesday pm). while the specific focus and organization of the July'04 Workshop at ITP were further discussed on Thursday morning, within a smaller group of participants still present.
During the plenary session on Wednesday pm, Robin Reichlin of NSF presented plans to hold a town meeting at AGU, and an open community workshop next Spring to result in a white paper that would serve as the basis for a revised RFP for the CSEDI program. Depending upon community input, this report may be used to seek an increase in the funding base for the CSEDI program. It is through this expanded funding that initiatives such as CIDER could be funded, not through the existing program.
Recommendations
During the Wednesday pm plenary discussion it transpired that there was widespread support for developing the Institute - that people did not want it to be ONLY focused on tutorials for graduate students, but that it should ALSO provide the framework for research related activities. The idea that CIDER programs would foster new collaborations that might then lead to CSEDI type proposals seemed to be viewed particularly favorably. CIDER should not be about building databases or software development, but should work closely with groups that do (such as CCIG or GERM), providing them input on needs from a multidisciplinary point of view, potentially hosting some of their meetings. The green light was given to those who initiated the CIDER concept to develop their vision and find the best way to implement it. The CIDER Steering Committee has been entrusted with putting together the NSF proposal (which will be done at a meeting held in Davis, CA, Sept 8-10, 2003). Participants came to the conclusion that the best way to achieve CIDER would be to ramp it up progressively, starting with a 3 year period over which the number of CIDER programs would be increased from initially 2 per year (at a cost of about $500K/year , not including facilities) with a progressive ramp up, if the concept is embraced by the community. After that initial stage, enough experience should be gained to establish a full scale Institute. Several individuals have started thinking about possible CIDER programs they might want to propose. In doing so, it is important to keep in mind that CIDER programs should really strive to emphasize inter-disciplinary cross-education, and a radically different way of "doing business" than in the many workshops that are presently available to our community. Admittedly, this represents a challenge which we need to keep in mind in a sustained fashion.
July'04 ITP Summer Program
The July'04 ITP Summer Program can be viewed as a "dry-run" for how a CIDER program might work, although the submission of the CIDER proposal to NSF should not be linked to the success of this particular program. This program was discussed throughout the meeting and much of the discussion on Thursday morning centered around it. The original plan, presented by Dziewonski and centered on REM was first criticized as being too technical and not reaching enough across disciplines. Perhaps the balance of tutorials/research activities leaned too heavily towards tutorials. By the end of the meeting (Sometime Wednesday late afternoon) a consensus was reached around the following theme:
"Relating Geochemical and Seismological Heterogeneity in the earth's mantle ".
This theme essentially broadens the original scope of the ITP Program, maintaining much of its ingredients: going from seismological 3D models to geochemical observations necessitates input from mineral physics to provide the intermediate step of converting seismic heterogeneity to temperature (and/or composition). There is a clear role now for geodynamicists who can interpret the results in terms of dynamics. Variability among seismological models, mineral physics "conversion factors", geochemical observations could be explored in teams focused on particular cross-sections of the mantle, or regions, comprising specialists of all the disciplines. How the tutorials can be weaved into this program, given constraints on space at ITP and time still needs to be elaborated. The organizing committee for this program will comprise members of the Steering Committee. Several other participants have expressed interest in helping organize parts of the program and will be contacted.
|
|