Join us at EGU 2017: Call-for-abstracts is now open!

Join us at EGU 2017: Call-for-abstracts is now open!

From now, up until 11 January 2017, you can submit your abstract for the upcoming EGU General Assembly (EGU 2016).

In addition to established scientists, PhD students and other early career researchers are welcome to submit abstracts to present their research at the conference. Further, the EGU encourages undergraduate and master students to submit abstracts on their dissertations or final-year projects.

The EGU recognises that there are many outstanding students who would benefit from attending and presenting at the General Assembly and, therefore, provides a discounted registration rate to this group. Interested undergraduates can apply to present a poster, talk or PICO presentation on research undertaken in a laboratory setting, on a mapping or field project they’ve been involved in during their degrees, or any other research project of relevance.

Browse through the EGU 2017 sessions. Clicking on ‘please select’ will allow you to search for sessions by Programme Group and submit your abstract to the relevant session either as plain text, LaTeX, or a MS Word document. Further guidelines on how to submit an abstract are available on the EGU 2017 website.

An innovative presentation format – Presenting Interactive Content, better known as PICO – has been implemented at the General Assembly since 2013. PICO sessions bring together the advantages of both oral and poster sessions, allowing authors to present the essence of their work and follow it up with interactive discussion. Please note that some sessions are ‘PICO only’ sessions, meaning you cannot select oral/poster preference. If you are submitting to a PICO only session be sure to check out our PICO guide, for tips on how to prepare your presentation.

The deadline for the receipt of abstracts is 11 January 2017, 13:00 CET. If you would like to apply for financial support to attend the 2017 General Assembly, please submit an application no later than 01 December 2016. We’ll be providing further information about how to apply for travel grants and how they are awarded in a forthcoming post.

EGU 2017 will take place from 23 to 28 April 2017 in Vienna, Austria. For more information on the General Assembly, see the EGU 2017 website and follow us on Twitter (#EGU17 is the conference hashtag) and Facebook.

NB: We strongly recommend booking accommodation for EGU2017 as soon as possible . The congress ECCIMD2017 (10,000 participants) will take place in Vienna at the same time as the EGU2017. In addition, the Vienna City Marathon (40,000 participants) will take place on Sunday, resulting in many hotels being fully booked the night before.

GeoPolicy: Living in a post-factual society and why it’s more important than ever for scientists to engage

GeoPolicy: Living in a post-factual society and why it’s more important than ever for scientists to engage

Last week, the EGU Science Policy Fellow packed her bags and flew to Brussels. Now this wasn’t to sample some of the fine beers Belgium has to offer, but to attend the 2nd International Network on Government Science Advice (INGSA) Conference. This conference, co-organised by INGSA and the European Commission, aimed to discuss the major principles needed for effective science advice to governments, focusing predominantly on the European scale. This month’s GeoPolicy post looks at the main themes and take home messages discussed at the conference.


A post-factual society?

Commissioner Carlos Moedas, in his opening address, described science validity as being under attack from so-called ‘post factual politics’. Events like the UK referendum decision to leave the EU is an example of this, but many others exist throughout Europe and the world: 41% of the French population now believe vaccines are unsafe.

Part of the reason for this shift in distrust towards expert advice is the rapid rise of non-traditional media platforms. More than ever the public are exposed to information from all angles and across multiple platforms. These platforms can spread misinformation (whether willingly or by accident) and therefore the ‘facts’ by themselves may no longer assumed to be correct.

Moedas believes that a more transparent and open approach to science advice can help increase public trust. He stated that people can understand the answers if they understand the process. Then, the public can more accurately judge the facts from the fiction.


So why should we engage?

Science advice to policy is often considered a two-way interaction, between the scientists and the policy makers, however the public are vital in this relationship. Scientists need to engage with both, not just because it furthers their research impact, but also it helps ensure a future for their science. Scientists must involve themselves with correcting this dangerous shift towards ignoring the facts. Democratically elected representatives will act on what are the public’s interests (for fear of not being re-elected if nothing else). So scientists need to make sure their work is communicated effectively and accurately to the public. When the public cares, so do the politicians. Although this is selfish reasoning, a scientist needs to ensure the public cares about their research, otherwise funding may be reallocated to other areas of public interest.

Additionally, the positives of effective science advice to policy are plentiful: capacity building, increased sustainability, society can become safer, the economy improves etc. In the EU, ultimate policy decisions are made by member states who are predominantly diplomats, not scientists. Therefore, effective science advice mechanisms to ensure policy makers learn about science are needed. However, this this is no easy task.


No one size fits all

Multiple approaches to science advice exist across the EU and the world, e.g., chief scientific advisors, national academies, third party organisations, in-house organisations, advisory boards / mechanisms. Several presentations from this conference showed that each situation requires tailoring; no one mechanism will work in every situation and not all mechanisms will work in each situation.

More concrete science-policy mapping is needed to better understand these different mechanisms and to help outside institutions comprehend how they might contribute.


The EU’s Scientific Advice Mechanism

A new Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) has been created to improve science advice transparency within the European Commission. SAM was described in a previous GeoPolicy post, but essentially it comprises a seven-member panel of scientific experts who work closely with the Commission and EU science academies to study scientific topics of societal interest. The network of scientific academies, known as SAPEA, can call upon external experts to contribute to the topics of focus. Currently three topics have been identified: Cybersecurity, Light duty vehicle real-drive CO2 emissions, and Glyphosate.

SAM is in its early stages, being established only a year. Needless to say, the science-policy world is observing its progress and performance with eager eyes.


Tips for communicating to each other

Both scientists and policy workers need better training at understanding the different languages each group speaks. Several tips / suggestions mentioned during the conference are listed below.

For scientists:

“There is an increasing pressure on scientists to deliver and they are now subject to closer public scrutiny. Therefore, scientists cannot take their authority for granted, they need to earn it, especially in polarising situations where public opinion is split” Pearl Dykstra (SAM panel member)

  • Less is more (when explaining science). Can you explain your science in 140 characters? Or pitch your research during a quick conversation in a lift? If so, this gets you a 20 minute meeting with a commissioner / MEP etc.
  • “Scientists should put themselves in shoes of policy makers more often. They need to address societal needs: there is no shortage of these” (Tibor Navaracsics, DG Education, Culture, Youth and Sport).
  • Try to understand the constraints of democracy. Science is only one factor that is considered during policy making.
  • The job of scientists is to explain what is, not what ought to be. Politicians will advocate, scientists must give the facts on which to base advocacy. Both sides need to be aware of their own biases.
  • Engage with both politicians and the public to increase trust.
  • Timing is essential. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) ensures their science advice is given when most needed. For example, disaster response requires warnings / reports / impact maps to be published as soon as possible, the JRC issues these within 2-3 hours.


Tips for policy workers:

  • Anticipate / expect what researchers need (policy-for-science) for them to do effective research.
  • Decrease bias, policy workers need to be open to their need for advice. “We need politicians to trust the science process even if they don’t like the results” (Bernhard Url, European Food Safety Authority).
  • Champion evidence-based policy making as we cannot afford policy mistakes. This can be hard, as it may seem counter intuitive at times.

“Both sides need to create space and time for the science policy dialogue” Yoko Harayama (Cabinet Office for Japan)


What if we fail?

There are many challenges with providing effective mechanisms for science advice to policy. Saruto Ohtake (Cabinet Office for Japan) gave a poignant talk about what the effects can be when this relationship fails.

The 2011 Japanese earthquake, which induced a tsunami and the shutdown of the Fukishima nuclear power plant, killed over 10,000 people. Scientific research was not communicated quickly enough and policy workers failed to ask for advice.

The results of this failure were catastrophic and subsequently, public trust in science dropped 10-20%. Effort on both sides is now needed to restore public trust and to ensure similar events never happen again.

This talk highlighted another reason for why scientists and policy officials need to have an effective and trusted relationship with each other and the public.

Although the conference focused more on the challenges at hand, rather than implementing potential solutions, it still provided much discussion and food-for-thought. Luckily, these topics could be mulled over after the conference with a refreshing blond Belgium beer.

Additional Reading

Principles of science advice to government: key problems and feasible solutions

GeoPolicy: 8 ways to engage with policy makers

Dealing with post normal science and post truth politics

Science and Policy Making: towards a new dialogue website

Imaggeo on Mondays: The odd ‘living’ rocks

Imaggeo on Mondays: The odd ‘living’ rocks

Microbialites – structures which result from the interaction between microbes and sediments – have existed in the rock record since 3700 Ma ago until the present day. The presence of microbes in environments where mineral precipitation is prevalent, usually derives in the development of such chemical sedimentary structures. This can take place in marine, non-marine, and subterranean environments. The most common type of microbialites may be referred to as stromatolites.

The stromatolites shown here formed ~72 Ma ago in an intra-arc basin – a basin, located between two chains of volcanoes formed above subducting plates, where sediments deposit –  within the Tarahumara Formation, which was emplaced during the Laramide orogeny (some 70 to 80 million years ago) in Northwestern Mexico (Sonora).

The locality has been named the Huepac Chert because of the presence of thin and thick chert – a very fine grained rock made of silicon dioxide – horizons. The chert is black and it contains a great variety of fossils, including pollen grains, fungal spores, green algae, cyanobacteria, diatoms, arthropod remains, fruits, palm roots, aquatic plants (e.g. Haloragaceae), and numerous achritarchs.

Preliminary studies of the Fe2O3/TiO2 and MnO/TiO2 ratios in the chert suggest that hydrothermal activity was frequent and that it promoted the deposition of the majority of the chert where important organisms are beautifully preserved.  Iron-rich laminae, instraclasts, and evaporation processes may be inferred for the topmost sediments covering the stromatolites, suggesting that the water level fluctuated while these structures were forming.

There is still much work to do regarding the paleoenvironments where those Cretaceous stromatolites developed. These Upper Cretaceous successions are rare in Sonora, and biostratigraphic correlations can be made only with one locality to the South (Cerro El Obispo), but no other localities with similar lithology and fossil content have been reported.

By Hugo Beraldi, researcher at the Institute of Geology of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

Imaggeo is the EGU’s online open access geosciences image repository. All geoscientists (and others) can submit their photographs and videos to this repository and, since it is open access, these images can be used for free by scientists for their presentations or publications, by educators and the general public, and some images can even be used freely for commercial purposes. Photographers also retain full rights of use, as Imaggeo images are licensed and distributed by the EGU under a Creative Commons licence. Submit your photos at

Imaggeo on Mondays: recording the Earth’s magnetic field one grain at a time

Imaggeo on Mondays: recording the Earth’s magnetic field one grain at a time

The Earth’s magnetic field extends from the core of the planet, right out to space. It is an invisible, butterfly-like, shield which protects us against the harmful particles ejected by solar flares. In addition, it guards us from atmospheric erosion and water loss caused by solar wind.

But how do scientists study the Earth’s magnetic field when it can’t be see? Much of what is known results from a combination of methods: computer simulations help understand the inner core – where the field is generate – while rocks of all ages can contain information about the changes in strength and direction of the past magnetic field.

The best recorders of this information are volcanic rocks, but sediments (those rocks formed through processes of deposition) and other types of igneous rocks can also be studied.

For a rock to be a good source of information about the properties of the magnetic field, it needs to contain some ferromagnetic minerals (magnetite, titanomagnetite – as pictured above – maghemite, among others). The more ferromagnetic minerals a rock contains the better it will record information about the Earth’s magnetic field.

To find out more about the Earth’s magnetic field and magnetic minerals take a look at some of these resources:
·         A visualisation of the Earth’s invisible field by NASA
·         The Earth’s Magnetic Field: An Overview by the British Geological Survey (BGS)
·         How does the Earth’s core generate a magnetic field? USGS
·         Magnetic vortices record history of Earth’s magnetic field by the Institute of Physics (IOP)


Imaggeo is the EGU’s online open access geosciences image repository. All geoscientists (and others) can submit their photographs and videos to this repository and, since it is open access, these images can be used for free by scientists for their presentations or publications, by educators and the general public, and some images can even be used freely for commercial purposes. Photographers also retain full rights of use, as Imaggeo images are licensed and distributed by the EGU under a Creative Commons licence. Submit your photos at



Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: