Innovation and emerging technologies

Policy for science

Creating policy impact

Science Communication and New Narratives

Skills and career paths for scientists

Conclusion

For queer researchers, especially those in the geosciences, this transatlantic war over Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) compromises networks for international collaboration, visa security, and the mentorship pipelines needed to sustain the next generation of scholars. As we look at the state of research in 2026, it has never been more urgent to peel off the corporate rainbow decals and remember an important (perhaps the most important) truth: Pride was not born in an administrative boardroom or a well-funded university lab. Pride was a riot.

The dismantling of the word "diversity"

The current crisis escalated dramatically following executive mandates that targeted diversity infrastructure within American higher education. Federal research agencies were pressured to freeze or cancel programs containing specific keywords. The National Science Foundation archived flagship diversity programs like ADVANCE, purging over 1,600 grants and stripping millions of U.S. dollars in funding as documented in the comprehensive CEWS Journal analysis of the war on DEIA.

This disruption did not remain confined to American borders; it immediately triggered a geopolitical domino effect across the Atlantic. To make matters worse, many European institutions appear to be preemptively capitulating to protect their commercial and academic ties to the US. European academic entities and multinational corporations are actively downplaying diversity initiatives, in a move that seems designed to appease American political interests, an alarming trend noted in the HEC Paris analysis of corporate and academic self-censorship.

If we want a future where a queer geoscientist can safely map a changing planet or decode climate systems without sacrificing their dignity or safety, it's time we stopped asking institutions for permission to exist. We cannot keep shrinking ourselves so we look less threatening to a university budget. Pride was a riot after all, and our queer ancestors would have wanted us to push back with the same power and desire to exist publicly without shame or fear.

This Pride month, I wish you safety, resilience, and love, whether you are out, safely, or not. Know, you are not alone, because we have always been here, and we will continue to be.

Remember, EGU's EDI committee is always here to support you, and make sure to check out the work that the EGU pride group does and join us if you want!

Without skilled journalists, our peer-reviewed papers risk gathering digital dust, and remain isolated from the public policy and societal awareness they are meant to inform. This is why we need science journalists, as they have the skills to take complex scientific results and turn them into accessible stories that captivate global audiences and help (re)shape climate policies around the world.

The European Geosciences Union (EGU) believes this bridge deserves recognition. That is why the 15 June 2026 deadline for the EGU Angela Croome Award is an date you cannot afford to miss! If you know a journalist who has spent their career working on democratising the geosciences, it’s time to give them the spotlight.

The legacy of Angela Croome

Established in 2019, this union-level award complements the EGU Science Journalism Fellowship. It honours the role that media professionals play in raising awareness of the global challenges facing our planet. The award is named in memory of Angela Croome, a pioneering UK science journalist. Croome was a trailblazer who carved out a space for reporting during the infancy of space exploration and underwater archaeology in the mid-20th century. She set a gold standard for reporting on complex, frontiers-pushing discoveries with clarity, balance, and objectivity. Today, the Angela Croome Award keeps that spirit alive by awarding media professionals who excel at making Earth, space, and planetary sciences accessible to the general public.

Who is eligible for this award?

• The medium: Nominees must be journalists working in any medium, including print, digital media, television, radio, podcasts, or independent web publishing.

• The style: The award targets professionals who have been demonstrating continued, excellent, and successful reporting on Earth, space, or planetary science topics.

• The audience: A particular emphasis is placed on reporting that brings new scientific concepts to the public’s attention, especially discoveries relevant to Europe and European citizens.

• The status: Freelance journalists are fully eligible. Please note that only one author of a published journalistic piece may be nominated (joint team nominations are not eligible for this specific award).

Did you know? Unlike most elite academic accolades, self-nominations are accepted for the Angela Croome Award! Furthermore, nominees are not required to be EGU members.

Who can nominate and how?

While the nominee doesn't need to be an EGU member, the person submitting the final package via the EGU Awards & Medals Nomination Portal must be a registered EGU member.

If you are an active EGU member and want to highlight an outstanding journalist, or if you are a journalist looking to self-nominate with the backing of an EGU colleague, the nomination package is pretty straightforward. You can visit the official EGU Proposal and Selection of Candidates page for more details. Your single PDF upload must include:

1. A nomination letter: This must not exceed 5,000 characters (including spaces). It should outline why the candidate deserves this recognition, focusing specifically on their contributions to geosciences journalism and public accessibility.

2. A summary CV: A concise, one-page summary of the journalist’s career history, outreach experience, previous honours, and public service.

3. Selected work portfolio: Up to three samples of reporting that establish the nominee’s excellent contributions to geoscience journalism. Each submitted sample must be accompanied by a summary (maximum one page) providing a synthesis of the content and information to evaluate the value of the contribution. The samples and accompanying summaries may be in any language.

The clock is ticking: Act before June 15!

Nominations for the 2027 EGU Awards cycle close on 15 June 2026.

Putting together a nomination package takes less time than you think, but its impact can last a career. Take a look through your favorite media outlets, remember the articles that successfully explained your own field to your friends and family, and help us celebrate the people who keep our science alive in the public consciousness.

On Friday, May 8, 2026, the final day of the EGU26, I attended a Special Programme Group session of the Soil System Sciences (SSS) division on Facing the last policy challenges in the EU: How soil scientists can contribute to the demands for scientific evidence to support EU policies. The session brought together scientists, policymakers, and representatives from European institutions, including members of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the European Parliament (EP), to discuss one of the most significant recent developments in European soil policy: the EU Soil Monitoring and Resilience Law (SMRL).

In the session, it was immediately made clear that this is not a regulation concerned only with agriculture. Soil health is now recognised as a wider question about climate adaptation, biodiversity, carbon storage, human health, air pollution, and more. A matter connected to multiple policy priorities, which also makes it challenging to define in a single way, both politically and scientifically.

What’s interesting is that a proposal for EU-wide soil legislation was first adopted by the European Commission (EC) nearly two decades ago. After disagreements between Member States, however, it was withdrawn in 2014. The SMRL being implemented now is therefore not a sudden decision, but the result of a much longer process of political negotiation and scientific advocacy. Martin Hojsík reflected on the collaborative efforts that have helped push the legislation forward:

“...when official channels fail, it is civil society and informal networks of scientists that help keep things alive and moving forward...” said Martin Hojsík (MEP, Renew Europe, EP)

One of the law’s central objectives is to develop a harmonised framework for soil health monitoring. In practice, this means establishing monitoring systems that make soil data comparable across the EU (EC, 2023). The matter of harmonisation was frequently brought up during the session, with a central dilemma repeatedly emerging: how do we establish a framework that works for all? This poses a challenge particularly from a legal perspective, as the law must remain flexible enough to function across very different national and ecological contexts. Not to mention, monitoring itself is only the beginning. Europe already holds vast amounts of soil data, but the challenge lies in transforming that information into tools for decision-making.

This part of the discussion was particularly interesting for me because it connected directly to the practical reality of soil science. As an early-career soil scientist working with peatlands, I’m aware that European soils are not a single system, but a mosaic of very different environments. Soil health in a Mediterranean dryland is not the same thing as soil health in a boreal peatland. The climatic conditions, hydrology, nutrient cycles, and microbial communities are all different, just to begin with. The core issue is how soil functions vary enormously between regions.

So how do we decide what a defines a healthy soil? Should we focus on carbon budgets, biodiversity and belowground functioning, nutrient cycling, ecosystem services, or, perhaps, a combination of the above? And how do we compare all this data without overlooking the differences that make each soil system unique? During the session, I asked Claire Chenu of AgroParisTech and INRAE how such diverse soil data can realistically be harmonised across Europe. Chenu’s answer highlighted an important distinction: while monitoring systems may require shared indicators, descriptors, and measurement standards, the target values themselves cannot necessarily be universal across all soil types and land uses. As she explained:

“If we want to cover the whole of Europe, we need the same measurement frequency, depth, and descriptors across land uses. But the target values still need to be defined.” – Claire Chenu (AgroParisTech, INRAE)

The discussion repeatedly returned to the question of how to define thresholds and target values accurately. Speakers acknowledged that they cannot simply be transferred from one soil system to another, as the health of a given soil is ultimately defined by its ecological context, but also by what society expects it to provide. This is what makes defining “soil health” such a complex scientific and political challenge. It’s an exciting framework for action, but scientifically, it also risks becoming too broad unless it remains grounded in the actual functioning of different systems.

The implementation discussions also made clear that data harmonisation is not only a technical issue, but an institutional one as well. Austria was brought up as an example, as it already holds soil monitoring data from multiple federal states. However, the challenge lies in bringing those datasets together, harmonising them, and making them comparable over time. A strong emphasis was also placed on continuity: the speakers argued that the relationship between science and policy cannot be treated as a single workshop or consultation round. Instead, it must become an ongoing discussion. Scientists need time to become familiar with policy development, while policymakers in turn need time to understand how scientific evidence is produced, what its limitations are, and how uncertainty should be approached, as Chenu noted:

“We also need to improve how to communicate about uncertainty.” – Claire Chenu (AgroParisTech, INRAE)

For me, this was one of the most encouraging parts of the session. It was refreshing to hear uncertainty acknowledged honestly instead of treating it as failure. Soil systems are complex, and while clear categories and thresholds are required for policymaking, the discussion highlighted that the real challenge is not eliminating complexity but working with it. In other words, building frameworks that can be applied in practice while remaining flexible enough to evolve alongside growing scientific knowledge.

One interesting question that emerged was how scientists should engage in policymaking. The answer was not that every scientist must become a policy expert. Rather, the call was for stronger connections, better communication — also across scientific disciplines — and more active involvement where expertise is needed. The speakers reminded us that the scientific community should not underestimate its own relevance in this process, because good policy is built on scientific contribution. At the same time, the importance of scientific engagement should be more recognised in academia; after all, policy work is unfortunately not frequently rewarded in the same way as publications.

What stayed with me most by the end of the session was the sense that soil protection is not just about soil. It is about coordination, communication, and shared responsibility across institutions, disciplines, and countries. The SMRL represents a major political and scientific milestone, but its success will depend on the effectiveness of translating scientific results into policy decisions while accounting for soil diversity. For a soil scientist, diversity is not an abstract concept but an inherent part of system functioning. Any attempt to define “healthy soil” must leave room for ecological variation while still creating an actionable framework. That is the challenge ahead, and also the very reason this law matters: it depends on our collective effort.

EGU Awards and Medals nominations

Public engagement grants

Science journalism fellowship

Early Career Scientist Online Workshops

High education teaching grants

How to peer review online workshops

Science-for-policy pairing scheme

Online webinars and events

• Webinars: often an hour long, EGU webinars cover a range free training as well as panels discussing research and geoscience community topics. All webinars are recorded and published on the EGU Youtube channel.
  • • • Coming soon: Thursday 11 June, 13:00 - SciComm 101: How To Share Science Online
• Workshops: our workshop offers provide more in-depth training, often occuring for two or more hour-long sessions and which are spread over a series. Workshops are delivered by professionals who have been funded by EGU following their succesful application to our calls.
  • • • Coming soon: August onwards - registration opens for three EGU Autumn Workshop Series on Science Communication, Science-for-Policy, Peer-Review, and Early Career Scientist career development.
• Seminar-style Campfires: EGU Campfires provide space for community discussion and networking around a particular scientific field. Run by one or more of our scientific divisions, Campfires are not recorded to cultivate a space for relaxed discussion.
  • • • Coming soon: Thursday 28 May, 13:00 - Ocean Sciences Campfire
• Hangouts: building community around cross-cutting and interdisciplinary themes like Science-for-Policy, our Hangouts, similar to Campfires, are also not recorded and are focused around topical seminars and networking.
  • • • Coming soon: Monday 1 June, 14:00 - Science for Policy Hangout

“We start prepping for the next General Assembly around July!”, she says.

Like many conversations around Generative AI, it was sprawling at times, making it difficult to reduce to a single thread. Perhaps that speaks of the fact that “AI ethics” itself is usually discussed as if it were something external to us: a framework to develop, a policy to write, a set of guidelines to package neatly into an institutionally branded document. In reality, some of the most important ethical decisions around AI can be quite personal, and in a way, rather simple.

You could use Generative AI to help refine and correct your grammar for a peer review written in a language that is not your first. You could also ask it to write the review for you. Technically, they both involve AI-generated text. Ethically, they are worlds apart. 

That distinction matters because, despite frequent discussions about regulation, detection tools, and institutional guidance, much of scientific integrity still depends on individual choices. Many researchers may not act ethically because they are constantly monitored or because misconduct is easy to detect. They do so because science relies, to a remarkable extent, on personal responsibility: on judgement, restraint, and the willingness to engage critically and honestly with the work you are doing.

Perhaps that is what makes the current moment feel so important. AI is not only changing what scientists can do, but potentially how scientists think, and how much thinking we choose to outsource to a co-worker that is always helpful, perhaps at times suspiciously so.

At its broadest level, AI ethics is concerned with how these systems are built, trained, deployed, and used (and with the consequences that emerge from those choices). Some concerns relate to the data used to train AI models: where it comes from, what biases it may contain, whether people consented to its use, and whether copyrighted or sensitive material is involved. Others focus on transparency and accountability: whether humans can meaningfully understand how a system reached a conclusion, who is responsible when errors occur, and how these technologies should be regulated in high-impact contexts such as healthcare, law, or education. Finally, there are also broader societal concerns, ranging from environmental costs to misinformation, labour displacement, surveillance, and the possibility of increasingly powerful AI systems being used irresponsibly.

The recent report by the IUGS Commission on Geoethics approaches many of these issues directly, offering recommendations for the ethical use of AI in the geosciences. Going through every aspect of AI ethics in detail would be difficult in a single blog post (and would probably ensure nobody reaches the end of it). So instead, I want to focus on a few ideas from the debate that stayed with me afterwards.

The first one is agency.

The truth is, ultimately, ethical AI use is less about what AI can do, and more about what you choose to delegate to it and about recognising that this remains a choice.

This may sound obvious, but AI has been in conversation where it was described as something happening to scientists rather than something scientists actively decide to use. The language surrounding this is strangely passive: AI is transforming research, changing publishing, and disrupting education. AI isn't doing any of those things; we are. The responsibility for how we engage with these systems remains ours.

You choose whether to verify the output of a model before including it in your work. You choose whether to rely on AI-generated summaries instead of reading papers yourself. You choose whether AI acts as an assistant to your thinking or begins replacing parts of the thinking process altogether. As Emma Ruttkamp-Bloem (one of the panellists) said:

“once AI is part of your process (in whichever way you choose), the work you need to do after you’ve generated content with AI is not insignificant. The key is, you have to want to do it.”

The debate repeatedly returned to this point, directly and indirectly. Not necessarily through dramatic warnings about artificial intelligence itself (at no point in the debate did I feel like any of the panellists discouraged AI use in science), but through reminders that scientific integrity cannot be outsourced. Responsibility does not disappear simply because a tool becomes more powerful or more convenient. Convenience matters, and AI systems are extraordinarily good at reducing friction: drafting text, summarising information, generating code, organising ideas. But reducing friction can also reduce reflection. The easier it becomes to automate parts of scientific work, the easier it may become to disengage from them intellectually while still remaining accountable for the result. This takes me to the second idea that stayed with me after the debate: the importance of critical thinking not simply as a scientific skill, but as part of scientific ethics itself.

There is often concern that over-reliance on AI could lead to an erosion of skills (I wrote about this in last year’s blog post), but in the context of ethical use of AI, what the debate made me reflect on is the relationship between critical engagement and responsibility.

Science is not only about producing outputs. It is also about understanding how those outputs were reached, recognising uncertainty, identifying limitations, questioning assumptions, and being able to defend conclusions. Many of these processes are cognitively demanding, slow, and occasionally uncomfortable. They require attention, they take effort... if only there was an easier way, right?

AI can absolutely support these processes. It can help researchers work across languages, assist with coding, improve accessibility, and accelerate routine tasks. But there is a meaningful difference between using AI to support reasoning and using it to bypass reasoning altogether. Paraphrasing Emma again, “Know why you are interacting with AI, think about not being manipulated. It’s not paranoia, it’s just acknowledging that AI often cuts reflection time, which is a key part of our process. Research is about learning and reflection. It’s not about doing it as fast as possible.”

Perhaps this is why discussions around AI in science can feel ethically uneasy even when no obvious misconduct has occurred. The concern is not always that researchers are “cheating” in some concrete way. To me, the more concerning thought is that they may gradually stop fully inhabiting the intellectual processes for which they are still held accountable.

As I wrote at the start of this piece, ethical AI use is really difficult to police. Like many other aspects of science, it relies on trust at the individual level and so it is a collective responsibility to make choices simply because they are ethical rather than because of the consequences (for ourselves) if we do not.

Nevertheless, some organisations are now developing guidelines and recommendations for the ethical use of AI, with practical and actionable suggestions for researchers. These are not intended as rigid rules, but as tools to help people develop the knowledge, awareness, and agency needed to make thoughtful choices that protect both science and scientists. 

I will conclude by quoting the IUGS report, because I don’t think I can phrase this better than they already have:

“Ethics is not just about rules or consequences; it is situational, emotional, empathetic and relational. It is about moral character. Virtue ethics is a habitual disposition to act rightly – what a good and wise person would do.”

Choose to be a good and wise scientist.

EGU26 is almost over. The question is: Now what?

It is busy during the conference. Finding the way around the convention center, presenting work, learning what others are doing, back-to-back sessions, browsing eye-catching exhibits, not to forget the 20,000+ people to network with! It can feel exhausting, making me crave a still moment to chill from all that thrill. But when I finally walk out of the venue for the last time, I already miss the buzz. The friendly folks. The exciting encounters, whether those expected or the ones by chance. Here is what I do to keep the high for longer.

• I write down my ideas: The meeting is full of inspiration. But if I don't mark it, everything that seems so clear now can get blurred, or may disappear altogether rather soon.
• I organize my contacts: If I've met someone I would like to stay in touch with, now is the time to ensure I can do that later. Maybe I didn't exchange contact information on-site, but I can still find the author's email if I recall the session's name. Or perhaps, if I only wrote a first name and number, I make sure to write down more details while I still remember them.
• I take my time: Realizing those ideas won't happen overnight. That's fine. Once they are recorded, they can take a break. Likewise, writing a meaningful follow-up to a senior scientist I met for the first time might take a little while. In other words, a slow weekend after all that fast-paced action feels earned. Doing things right and doing them fast don't always go together.
• I mark the next EGU General Assembly in the calendar: It will be in the same venue, from April 4 to April 9, 2027. Even if it might seem far from today, previous years have taught me something: it will feel like a few weeks, and I will be packing for Vienna again in less than a year. Once it's in my calendar, I can start looking forward to it (and even book my accommodation and trains as soon as I can, because I know I am going!)

Additional actions:

• Fill out the EGU26 feedback form. It helps the EGU organisers refine and improve the conference every year.
• If you liked your EGU26 experience and would like to contribute to someone else's good times next year, consider signing up for the EGU Peer Support program once EGU27 gets closer.
• Finally, if you are still in the city, you can prolong the excitement by checking out the brand-new EGU26 mural at Wargramer Strasse 61, Vienna:

What are your post-conference tricks? Feel free to share them in the comments!

Congratulations to our EGU26 Photo Competition winners!

If art provides the visual gateway to science, the field of education provides the map. The General Assembly continues to be a vital space where educators and researchers swap expertise. Scientists can gain insight into class management, the learner's perspective, and techniques to measure communication effectiveness, while educators get a front-row seat to the latest discoveries. Thomas Schubatzky reflected on this productive exchange during his poster session on TRACE, a project that links climate literacy with individual and collective action.

The GMif project represents a significant ESA initiative designed to turn raw pixels into actionable knowledge. Focused on the land and air masses of the UK, Ireland, and France, it moves beyond traditional observation to create a web-based geospatial information system (webGIS). This week, the project team is inviting you to move from being mere observers to active participants in the Information Factory exchange, a spinter meeting titled: SPM53: Demonstration of the Green Transition Information Factory capabilities for UK, Ireland and France, organized by Jan-Peter Muller, Patrick Griffiths, and Rob O'Loughlin, taking place in Room 2.97 on Friday 08 May, 12:45–13:45 CEST.

This session is designed as an interactive workshop where scientists can explore how high-resolution Earth Observation data is being funneled into five transition domains. The project demonstrates mapping of urban heat anomalies at a resolution of 25 and 7.5 meters. This level of detail allows for a shift in focus from broad regional trends to specific public infrastructure. This enables the identification of which schools or hospitals are most vulnerable during extreme heat events. Similarly, the mobility and air quality component challenges the status quo of sensor placement.

Food security is addressed through a sophisticated fusion of Sentinel-2, Landsat-TM, and ERA5 data, which downscales drought forecasting to a 10 meter sub-field resolution. This allows for a granular understanding of crop resilience, and therefore helps farmers navigate the impacts of global heating on a field-by-field basis. For the energy transition, the team has developed a decision-support tool focused on the placement of raised bi-facial photovoltaic systems. This approach allows for the generation of solar power without encroaching on sensitive environments or despoiling the landscape: think of it as a way to offer a sustainable path for rural landowners who are facing economic pressures. Finally, the carbon accounting capability uses Sentinel-2 and the EarthDaily constellation to capture methane plume eruptions at resolutions as sharp as 60 meters, and provides a time-series tool for monitoring unplanned industrial emissions.

This Friday's workshop is a request for feedback. The Factory concept relies on an exchange where your expertise helps refine these tools to better serve international research and local policy. You will have the chance to interact with the webGIS interface directly and discuss how these capabilities can be adapted to other geographical regions or specific research needs.

Curious to see how the European Space Agency is operating its data for the Green Transition? Then make sure not to miss this splinter meeting. Regardless of your field of expertise, this session will offer you a glimpse into the future of applied geosciences.

For those eager for a preview, a brief demonstration of the eodashboard will take place at the ESA stand on Thursday at 16:40. However, for a full exploration of the science and a chance to influence the project's direction, the Friday splinter session is the place to be. More information and the client interface itself can be explored online at the project’s official website.

A lot of people don’t even know that Jupiter has a ring because it is not like Saturn’s ring, that’s very bright and shiny because it is made of water ice and reflects the sun. [Jupiter's ring] it’s made of dust from meteoroid impacts on its tiny moons. It’s a place that still has a lot of mystery to it. said Heidi.

How AI / machine learning helped accelerate our understanding of Jupiter

I think it’s important to realize that AI is not going to replace the scientist by itself, that will actually be working together. It's another team member, so to speak that's doing all the hard work and pulling things out. But you will still need to look at the data, like even in the data that we've used, and say “Oh well wait a minute that doesn't make sense. Let's look at that program again and try to figure this out “ like we did with the dust. So it's very important to have a a loop with humans in the system. But AI it is a great aid that enables new things.

This was the case for the Great Debate on The future of scientific publishing: do we need scientific publishing? at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2026. Then, an eerie silence as a question appeared on screen: 'do we still need scientific journals?' This question was open for participants to respond with either a yes or a no.

Attendees reached for their phones to scan the QR code and answer. My intuition leaned toward a 'yes', and I wasn't wrong: the tally soon settled at 153 to 51. However, a 25% of the room voting 'no' was too large for me to dismiss as mere noise. The way the figures drifted and changed as the count finalised suggested an atmosphere of lingering indecision, as if the assembly hadn't quite committed to its own choice.

What followed wasn’t so much a clear-cut answer, but more of a series of tensions. Still, one point of consensus emerged quickly when panellists were asked if (and why) we need journals: gatekeeping and organisation. For all their flaws, journals offer a mechanism for peer review and retractions, as well as the ability to map out an ever-expanding world of data. I watched the room as these arguments were made, noting that not everyone was convinced; a few heads were already shaking in silent dissent.

In this post, I’m not trying to summarise every argument made on stage, but instead, I want to reflect on a few that lingered, particularly what the gap between what scientific publishing is supposed to be, and what it often is in practice. And, of course, how we move between the two.

In many ways, the ideal version of scientific publishing is not that difficult to describe. There was little disagreement on what journals should be, and on the fact that, if that were the reality, the initial vote would likely have been a more confident 'yes'.

1) They should be communities, not businesses. Built by scientists, for scientists, with decisions shaped from the bottom up rather than imposed from above. Access to publishing (and to publications) should not depend on the ability to pay.

2) They should act as a layer of quality control that people trust. Not just in principle, but in practice. This means ensuring that results are reproducible, that data and methods are accessible, and that claims are held to a consistent standard. At the same time, they should curate, not simply host, research: This can be in the form of organising it into something that readers can navigate without being overwhelmed.

3) And last but not least, they should rely on a culture where participating in the publishing ecosystem (editing, reviewing, typesetting even) is seen as a meaningful scientific contribution. Something done carefully, transparently where possible, and recognised as part of the collective effort to improve the work of others.

None of this felt particularly controversial. If anything, it felt like a shared baseline. At this level, agreement is easy. It is the implementation that fractures. The reality that emerged (both from the discussion and, particularly, from the Q&A) was far messier.

The first tension is structural.

Publishing is quite embedded in how scientific careers are evaluated. Metrics, visibility, prestige. A publication in a prestigious journal (define that as you will) is often seen as preferable, even when that journal is not necessarily aligned with the values just outlined. So researchers continue to submit, even to systems they openly criticise. Not because they are unaware of the issues, but because stepping away from that system is not a neutral decision when it still defines success. At the same time, participating in that system — reviewing, editing, contributing to its upkeep — is rarely rewarded in the same way. Careers are built on publications, not on the voluntary work that sustains the system behind them.

Peer review, usually presented as the backbone of quality control, is itself more fragile than the ideal suggests. There is no clear agreement on what it should look like. Transparency can increase accountability, but anonymity can offer protection, especially for early-career researchers asked to review the work of more senior scientists. Remove anonymity, and you risk discouraging honest critique. Keep it, and you allow reviewers to remain invisible behind their words. In practice, both systems coexist. Neither fully resolves the tension.

At the same time, the quality of review is inconsistent. Many researchers will recognise the experience of receiving reports that are thoughtful and constructive, and others that are rushed, superficial, or add little to the science. New concerns are also emerging, including the possibility of generative AI being used to produce reviews, raising further questions about what the 'peer' in peer review actually means.

Even the mechanisms meant to ensure meticulousness do not always function as intended. Editors are expected to enforce standards around reproducibility, data availability, and transparency, but this depends on time, resources, and, ultimately, individual commitment. Most researchers can point to examples where these safeguards have fallen short, and to the familiar experience of going on a quiet hunt for a dataset that should have been readily available.

So, describing the publishing landscape as 'broken' may be going one step too far, but it is clear that it is very uneven. The principles are widely shared. Their implementation is not. When problems are widely recognised, the solutions can sound deceptively simple. Publish in journals you trust. Review carefully. Support systems that align with your values.

In principle, the path forward is clear: if enough researchers choose differently, the system will change, but that clarity fades quickly in practice because the ability to choose differently is not evenly distributed.

Throughout the discussion, early-career researchers were repeatedly invoked as agents of change, encouraged to review diligently, to push back on unfair decisions, to help shape a better publishing culture. Yet, they are also the ones navigating the most fragile stage of their careers, where hiring, funding, and progression remain closely tied to metrics and journal prestige. Choosing principles over perceived impact is not a neutral decision when it can influence where a career goes next.

More established researchers, in contrast, have, more often than not, greater freedom to step away from those constraints, which raises an uncomfortable question: Who is actually in a position to lead change?

According to this Great Debate's panelists, responsibility is often framed as collective, but the ability to act on it is uneven. 

At the same time, change is not entirely hypothetical. Across the geosciences, alternatives are emerging, such as the growing number of diamond open access journals, built and run by scientific communities rather than commercial publishers. Review models are also evolving, with more journals experimenting with transparency and open discussion. These shifts show that different ways of publishing are not only possible, but already in motion.

From the Great Debate, I was left with the sense that scientific journals are, at least for now, here to stay. While we have become used to sharing our science in a multitude of ways (you name it: preprints, conferences, social media, etc.) journal articles remain, for many, the end point of a research project; the 'thing' that gives it a sense of completion. And 'good' journals (when they work as intended) are still effective platforms for sharing science openly and widely.

So perhaps the more realistic conclusion is not that journals will disappear, but that their role needs to be renegotiated.

As one panellist put it, the focus should be on

collectively choosing to move away from systems that do not serve us - said Ken Carslaw

But doing so requires more than statements of intent. It requires individuals to choose positive actions over performative ones.

For most of his life, he worked as a firefighter in a natural reserve in Galicia, in northern Spain, a region of green mountains and steep terrain, almost Lord of the Rings in its landscape, but also a place where fire moves quickly and is notoriously difficult to control. Firefighting crews there are used to the fact that, to even begin work, there is often a hike first (sometimes a long one) just to reach the fire line.

In summer, fires were part of life. You expected them. You prepared for them. I was young, but I still remember seeing my dad leave for work and not really knowing whether he would be back eight hours later, or several days later. But there was a rhythm.

There was a fire season, outside of which crews had time to do what you might call the quieter (though still back-breaking) work: clearing vegetation, creating firebreaks, planting trees, reducing fuel loads in the landscape so that when summer came, the system was at least partially prepared for it. And during fire season itself, there was also structure in how the work unfolded. The more experienced crews often worked during the day, when conditions were harsher and fire behaviour more aggressive. Nights, in contrast, often provided a critical window for progress: lower temperatures and higher humidity meant fires could slow down enough for crews to advance. During the day, you defend. During the night, you attack. But fires have changed.

If you’ve paid any attention to the news in recent years, you’ve probably noticed that wildfires have become a near-constant presence. No longer confined neatly to the peak of summer, they now stretch across longer seasons, appear earlier, last longer, and reach places that did not use to burn.

At the EGU General Assembly this year, I attended a press conference: Trial by fire: between preparedness, mitigation, and adaptation on a burning planet, which brought together scientists working on wildfire dynamics, prediction, and risk (Fig. 1).

I came into the session aware that there are more fires now. I came away realising that it’s not just that there are more - it’s that they are different. Fire, at its core, is simple. It needs fuel. It needs heat. It needs oxygen. And it responds to the environment around it. What is changing is not fire itself, but the world in which it lives.

Driven largely by climate change, the conditions that sustain fire are becoming more favourable across many regions. Longer dry periods leave vegetation more flammable. Higher temperatures dry fuels faster and for longer. Winds carry flames across landscapes that are already primed to burn. And crucially, these factors do not act independently.

Recent work discussed at the press conference, highlighted that extreme wildfire events tend to emerge when multiple drivers align: prolonged drought, high temperatures, strong winds, and accumulated fuel loads: all conditions that are becoming more common in a warming world. On their own, each of these factors increases risk. Together, they can transform a fire into something far more difficult to control: a megafire (Fig. 2).

[caption id="attachment_51261" align="alignnone" width="1024"] Credit: Farzad Ghasemiazma et al.; based on Ghasemiazma et al., npj Natural Hazards (2026), https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-026-00197-5[/caption]

These extreme events, resulting from a convergence of fire-favourable conditions, can grow faster, burn hotter, and persist longer than systems (both ecological and human) are equipped to handle.

“(Mega)fires are rare, but not random.” says Farzad Ghasemiazma from the University of Genoa, Italy.

There is a tendency, especially when discussing risk, to frame hazards as something we can prevent if we just understand them well enough. But many Earth system processes do not work that way. We do not prevent eruptions, but we monitor seismic activity, gas emissions, and ground deformation to anticipate them. We do not stop storms, but we track their trajectories and issue warnings in advance. We learn how these systems behave, we monitor their signals, and we try to reduce the damage they cause. Fire is increasingly part of that category.

Climate change is reshaping conditions in ways that make it easier for fires to ignite, spread, and grow more intense. In many regions, landscapes are shifting from ones that burn occasionally to ones that are periodically primed for fire.

As ecosystems that historically stored large amounts of carbon (such as forests and peatlands) begin to burn more frequently, they release significant amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Fires are not only a consequence of a warming climate, but also contributors to it, reinforcing the cycle. This is not something that can be undone in the short term. It is something that we have no choice but to adapt to. We no longer have the luxury of simply responding to fires as and when they appear (which is what my impression was, speaking to my dad whilst he was working only a few years ago).

This is what the press conference made clear: alongside this increasingly challenging picture, our ability to read fire systems is improving (because it must, right?).

Prediction is becoming central; but not in the sense that we can say exactly when and where the next fire will ignite, but in the sense that we are getting better at identifying when conditions are aligning in ways that make fires more likely, and when those fires might be at their most dangerous. Temperature, humidity, soil moisture, wind patterns, vegetation dryness: these are not abstract variables. They are measurable signals of how ready a landscape is to burn.

Recent work in global wildfire monitoring is moving towards combining these signals to assess not just fire weather, but the likelihood of actual fire activity and its potential severity. That shift, from describing fires after the fact to identifying risk before they escalate, is key. It changes when action happens.

[caption id="attachment_51200" align="aligncenter" width="1024"] Fig. 3: The 2024-2025 fire season, in numbers (The State of Wildfires Project)[/caption]

So yes, we are living in a world where fire is becoming a more persistent feature of the landscape, and that is unlikely to change in the near future, but we are also living in a time where we are beginning to understand it differently, as something that emerges from conditions we can increasingly observe, measure, and sometimes anticipate.

And that brings us back to a simple but powerful idea, one that came up during the press conference and that resonated with me: 

Fires are rare, but not random. They respond to the world we create around them, and the better we understand their patterns, the better we can navigate what is, undoubtedly, a more flammable future.

]]> https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/05/05/a-trial-by-fire-can-we-learn-how-to-read-a-burning-planet/feed/ 0 https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/05/05/invite-yourself-to-the-table-science-policy-at-egu26/ https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/05/05/invite-yourself-to-the-table-science-policy-at-egu26/#comments Tue, 05 May 2026 10:00:36 +0000 Despite the perfect timing, we are not talking about lunch. Policymakers often sit together and have crucial discussions that would greatly benefit by being scientifically informed. Scientists are sometimes invited to join those conversations but are starting to tune in on their own initiative as well.  Field camps and labs are where us scientists usually feel the most at home. Being surrounded by like-minded people and talking about our -very specific- shared passions all day is great! However, stepping out of those spaces is, most of the time, necessary, and can even be beneficial for science itself. This is especially true when it comes to interactions with policymakers who, among other things, decide how science gets funded and therefore shaped. Policy can do a great deal for science, and vice versa. Many scientists know this and would want to get involved by providing their scientific expertise as the basis for meaningful discussions. However, political and structural contexts can sometimes make exchange at the policy-science interface frustratingly difficult. As a scientist it’s easy to feel overwhelmed and helpless, thus giving up on pursuing science policy even if you would love to. The good news is: you are not alone! There are many people actively working towards facilitating the relationship between science-makers and policy-makers. Some of them gathered at the EGU General Assembly of 2026, for a Great Debate focused on how and why scientists should get involved in science policy, to bridge the gap between scientific evidence and political action while still considering the diversity in national and international systems. [caption id="attachment_51181" align="alignnone" width="300"] Speakers at the Great Debate 1 during EGU26. From left to right: Lene Topp, Nicole Arbour and Linda Lammensalo. Lorenzo Melchor Fernandéz and Alessandro Allegra were presenting online.[/caption] Brevity was the first desired quality to be highlighted in the session, as Convener Lene Topp noted that high level policymakers request complex scientific explanations to be given in the span of a meeting-to-meeting walk. Hence, we’ll keep it short and sweet. Here’s how you can start getting involved in science policy and why you should do it.

It takes a village (or even more)

Similarly to a dance party, science policy works better when multiple people are involved, plus coordinated action is key. There are a lot of networking groups that can help with that. If you are currently attending EGU26, you can start by visiting the Science for Policy Helpdesk that is active every day from 12:00 to 13:00 at the EGU booth in Hall X2. There is also a monthly EGU Science for Policy Newsletter, packed with news, activities and opportunities. You can subscribe here. Read the rulebook Ministries, governmental committees and local administrations are all possible locations for science-policy exchanges. They also all have unique nuances and inner working mechanisms. In the same way that driving a car doesn’t make you automatically qualified for boating, being an expert in “academic diplomacy” or even having some experience with local policy makers won’t necessarily be enough to knock on governmental doors. Networking groups can help with that as well but just know that it can take time. During the Great Debate, panelist Lorenzo Melchor said that, when the Spain government first started employing professional science advisors a year ago, their first assigned task was rather peculiar. For the first 100 days they were asked to do nothing but immerse themselves in the ministerial cabinet world, to really understand these spaces from the inside. When I grow up, I want to be an honest broker! As you’ve probably guessed from last paragraph, it is possible to develop a career in science policy. The so called “honest brokers” are especially on the rise and are being gradually more professionalized. Honest brokers are people that gather evidence-based opinions from multiple experts in a given field and then compile it in a way that can be used as a base for political decisions. Basically, they bring evidence into the discussion. As panelist Linda Lammensalo, a professional knowledge broker, put it:

“In conditions of deep uncertainty, policymakers do not primarily need more information. They need help structuring what is known, what is contested, and what is genuinely unknown.”

Most people, however, still take on science policy as a sort of demanding side-quest, that’s carried out in more traditional scientific settings as well. Some universities are starting to consider policy making efforts when evaluating scientists’ careers, following a new vision on academic merit that’s been outlined by CoARA (Coalition for Advancing Research Assesment) among other actors. So, whether you want to quit the lab and hop into cabinet chambers, or if you just want to help tackle very specific aspect, there’s likely something for you to do. [caption id="attachment_51186" align="alignnone" width="300"] Scientists gathering at the Science for Policy helpdesk in 2023.[/caption]

Look around, listen up

Science is a team effort, we know that. Science policy is as well. It is important, once finally sitting at the table, to look around. Notice who’s missing, whose voice is still unheard, and maybe invite them to join the talk as well. Of course, there are always going to be limitations to what can be done. This may quickly lead to frustration, which in turn develops into mistrust. It’s easy to assume malicious intent from some of the players involved, especially when the situation seems stuck. Honest discussions, even critical, difficult ones, are the only way out. They are the way forward too! Did all this sound incredibly exciting to you? Then, if you have a little more time for your walks than policy makers do, feel free to browse the resources mentioned above and start from there.]]> https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/05/05/invite-yourself-to-the-table-science-policy-at-egu26/feed/ 0 https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/05/04/mind-your-mind-surviving-the-conference-rollercoaster/ https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/05/04/mind-your-mind-surviving-the-conference-rollercoaster/#comments Mon, 04 May 2026 14:00:51 +0000 If you’ve ever been to Vienna’s Prater, you might know the ride.

I can see it from my hotel window while I am getting dressed to head to the Austria Center Vienna for EGU26. 

It’s essentially a long, slightly questionable-looking couch, strapped on either side to cables that behave less like cables and more like very enthusiastic elastic bands. One flick of a switch and suddenly — whoooosh!  you’re airborne. You shoot up into the sky, spin, bounce, and briefly wonder why you agreed to this in the first place. And then, almost as quickly, it’s over. Back on the ground, slightly disoriented, asking yourself what just happened.

It got me thinking about the EGU General Assembly. Being flung into the sky is not all that dissimilar to attending a large conference.

Before the conference starts, you’re too busy to think straight. You’re finishing slides, printing posters, checking your travel details for the fifth time. It’s all slightly chaotic, but with an undertone of excitement and anticipation, and all of a sudden, you’re there.

You walk into the ACV with probably a poster tube in your hand. Around you, people are greeting each other like long-lost friends. Conversations are already flowing. Everyone seems to know where they’re going. It may feel like you’ve arrived halfway through something that everyone else already understands. Your brain, very helpfully, begins to fill in the gaps.

What if I don’t know anyone here? What if I spend the week slightly on the edge of everything? What if I say something awkward to someone I really shouldn’t say something awkward to?

Well, too late. You are already sitting on the flying couch chair. There is no getting out now, so buckle up!

The conference is a whirlwind of sessions, coffee queues, and the constant fear of missing out. Amid the rush, your brain inevitably starts comparing: their results seem groundbreaking, their talks flawless. Then, the buzz vanishes. You’re back at your desk, swapping high-octane stimulation for total silence. This is the post-conference comedown, a disorienting shift from maximum input to zero.

So, as far as our brains are concerned, large conferences, are too, a kind of rollercoaster ride.

In this blog, I want to introduce you to some of the things my brain tells me during conference week, when it decides to creatively (and often wrongly) interpret its surroundings in the worst possible way. Not because they are particularly helpful, but because spotting them early can stop them from running the whole show.

Thought #1: “Everyone else has it together”

There is a very particular illusion that conferences create, and it is surprisingly convincing.

You sit in a talk and everything seems to work. The slides are clean, the figures make sense, the speaker sounds confident. You look at the final result and think: this is solid. Well thought through. Proper science. But you are basing your conclusion on an incomplete set of observations.

You do not see the earlier versions of the story that did not quite hold together, the results that complicated things (except, of course, in this session), or the parts the speaker is still unsure about. You also do not hear the internal commentary running alongside the talk: the mental notes about what they would rephrase, clarify, or cut if they had the chance, the nerves about what questions might come up, the “what ifs”.

For every presentation that looks seamless to you, there is almost certainly a presenter who can point to several things they would change.

In many ways, conferences are, let's say, the social media platform of science: polished snapshots that leave out most of the process behind them. We know that, and yet we often inadvertently compare our full internal experience (struggles included) with someone else’s final, curated version. And then treating that comparison as fair - when it isn’t.

Thought #2: “Why did you do that?!”

At some point, something will not go perfectly.

A sentence comes out less clearly than intended. A figure takes longer to explain than expected. A question catches you slightly off guard and your answer is not as smooth as it sounded in your head.

These moments feel disproportionately large while they are happening. Your brain tends to zoom in on them and expand them into evidence of something broader: that you may be less prepared, less clear, less capable than others around you. But from the outside, these moments are rarely experienced the way they feel internally.

Most people do not register them at all. The ones who do tend to interpret them as normal variations in communication rather than signs of anything deeper. After all, they are too busy thinking about their own talks, their own posters, their own “why did I say it like that?” moments.

In other words: the spotlight is much dimmer than it feels.

Thought #3: “I shouldn’t go, I don’t know anyone”

Go anyway.

Networking events have a way of making you acutely aware of your own position in a room. You walk in, see groups already formed, conversations already flowing, and immediately feel like you are slightly out of sync with everything around you.

It is easy to assume that everyone else arrived with a plan or a network already in place. And, whilst some have (some of us have been attending EGU since what seems like the deep geological past), in reality a lot of people are doing the same quiet calculation as you: where to stand, how to join in, whether it is easier to wait or to approach. If you pause and look around, you will spot them.

Say hello. It may feel like a difficult step, but it can completely change the rest of someone’s evening, including your own. If nothing else, imagine the relief you would feel if someone did exactly that for you.

Thought #4: “I’d like to talk to them, but…”

You recognise someone’s work. You have read their papers, maybe cited them, maybe built your work on them. And then you realise they are here, physically present, and that in principle you could simply... talk to them, right?

And yet that step feels oddly difficult.

Intentionality transforms networking. A brief introductory email, where you state your interest and suggest a time, turns a vague hope into a concrete meeting. (The EGU programme’s email icons make this seamless.) This preparation clarifies your own goals, ensuring a more meaningful exchange than the dreaded opening line: “My supervisor said I should talk to you.”

Thought #5: “I’m missing out on everything”

At some point, you will look at the programme and realise you are missing things. And you will also imagine you are missing things. Not just a talk here and there, but entire sessions, discussions, ideas that seem interesting in hindsight, potential opportunities, the job of your life… (ok, calm down).

Trying to optimise your way out of that usually just adds stress. A more workable approach is to accept that you will only ever see a fraction of what is going on, and that this is not a problem to solve but a condition of the environment. Check out this blog for more on missing out at EGU.

Science does not happen solely during the 12-minute slot you missed while queueing for coffee. It spills over into papers, preprints, social media, personal blogs, and chats with others. The science ecosystem these days sprawls far beyond scientific meetings and journals. Make notes. Follow up. Let things unfold beyond the timetable.

 

So yes, conferences can mess with your head a bit.

They compress comparison, attention, and social interaction into a very dense period of time. They give you access to a huge amount of science, but mostly in its most polished form. And your brain, doing what it always does, fills in the gaps in ways that are not always helpful.

But once you start to recognise the patterns, the moments where your brain over-interprets, over-compares, or quietly escalates things, something shifts. The ride is still fast, slightly chaotic, and occasionally disorienting. But it becomes easier to stay on it without over-analysing every turn.

So, next time you find yourself in a crowded conference hall, hovering at the edge of a conversation or wondering whether you should have gone to a different session, you can pause for a second and think:

Ah! It's that feeling again, isn't it?

And that's when you remind yourself to keep going. There’s a subtle peace in knowing that almost everyone around you is probably navigating the same inner noise, they’re just keeping it to themselves.

Enjoy your time at #EGU26!]]> https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/05/04/mind-your-mind-surviving-the-conference-rollercoaster/feed/ 0 https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/05/04/celebrating-20-years-of-geoscience-in-vienna-with-egu/ https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/05/04/celebrating-20-years-of-geoscience-in-vienna-with-egu/#comments Mon, 04 May 2026 10:00:50 +0000 annual General Assembly – a meeting of around 20,000 researchers that is held in Vienna, Austria, and online in each spring. This meeting is a critical event for our community, a place for scientists to get new ideas and come together to discuss their work, plans and struggles, in a world that is increasingly hostile to scientists and to safe and secure workplaces. This year’s conference, EGU26, marks the 20^th anniversary of the EGU General Assembly in Vienna, a huge milestone for both the EGU community and its partners; the Austria Center Vienna (our venue), and the Vienna Convention Bureau. To commemorate this jubilee, we propose a collaborative art mural in Vienna, giving context to the local audience on the thousands of geoscientists who gather in their neighbourhood each year! The mural aims to:

• Provide a lasting impression for Viennese people of all ages, highlighting the longstanding relationship between their city and EGU.
• Celebrate the anniversary by further fostering collaboration between the EGU community and Viennese artists.
• Showcase key advances in (geo)sciences from the last 20 years, while bringing in a local connection with geoscientific discoveries from Vienna-based scientists of the past.
• Feature the new EGU26 logo with the text "Celebrating 20 years of geoscience in Vienna!" as context for the artistic design. The optional QR code would direct the audience to an EGU blog post for further information and a detailed breakdown of the scientific components found within the mural.

Working with former Artist in Residence Jane Zimmerman and Noel Baker, EGU commissioned a muralist Wolfgang Hold to make the mural a reality! Work started this morning, at Wargramer Str. 61, Vienna (you can watch along on the live-stream here), and should be finished by Thursday 7 May. Inspiration for the mural is based on important geoscience events and discoveries in the last 20 years, and key geoscience events that have happened in Vienna! Learn more using our key image. 1. Discovery of soft tissue on T-Rex fossil, indicating they were feathered, including a discovery of a feathered dinosaur tail preserved in amber 2 and 5. EU creates the Copernicus initative, which makes remote sensing data free and openly available, including from its satellites, the Sentinels. 3. Martian research made leaps and bounds – from the discovery of water to possible signs of life 4. First image of a black hole 7. Climate impact on life became quantifiable and development of climate stripes by Ed Hawkins. 8. For the first time, geologists have drilled into the mantle 9. Okjökull in Iceland is declared the first glacier to be killed by climate change 10. Discovery of Neodymium – a new element – used now to make high power magnets by Carl Auer von Welsbach in 1885 in Vienna. 11. Discovery and naming of Gondwana continent and Tethys Ocean by Edward Seuss in 1893 in Vienna after discovering that the Alps were originally at the bottom of an ocean. 12. Ghost fish found living at the deepest part of the ocean, 2,500 meters underwater 13. Snowglobe first invented in Vienna in the 1870s by Erwin Perzy. 14. Discovery of oldest rock fragment on Earth – a zircon that is 4.4 billion years old 15. Biggest eruption of 21^st century: Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption. 16. The weight of a kilogram was redefined 17. EGU26 is still going on - check out the full programme online now!]]> https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/05/04/celebrating-20-years-of-geoscience-in-vienna-with-egu/feed/ 0 https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/05/04/a-hikers-guide-to-the-egu-general-assembly/ https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/05/04/a-hikers-guide-to-the-egu-general-assembly/#comments Mon, 04 May 2026 08:00:25 +0000 It is no secret that the scale of the EGU General Assembly is rather large, so coming to it can feel like tackling a massive mountain: exciting, but perhaps a bit scary at the same time. Thankfully, just as one can plan a big outdoorsy trek to minimize risks and maximize enjoyment, it is possible to do so with EGU. Here's how:

1) Prepare

Instead of learning about the anticipated terrain and checking the weather to have insights into what is to come, EGU has a detailed program for the meeting. Studying it in advance helps to feel more at ease when the conference starts.

2) Conquer the fear of missing out

Browsing the program can feel overwhelming. With so many sessions, it is often the case that two or more interesting ones are happening at the same time. You can think of it as if you had a week in the Himalayas: It would be impossible to see all the fascinating features out there, but that's okay. If you plan a route and focus on what you get to see rather than what you won't, you will have an amazing time.

3) Familiarize yourself with the maps

The maps at the EGU take the form of Floor Plans. Besides helping you find the rooms where the sessions of interest are, they can guide you to the nearest coffee spot, charging stations, toilets, and more.

4) Take a break

As you go through your EGU experience, be mindful of hours. Similar to a pause during a challenging climb that recharges muscles, stepping out of the meeting's rush for a moment can restore cognitive capacity. For inspiration on what to see and do outside the conference venue, check out our blog Outside the Conference: Vienna and Beyond.

5) Say hello!

Encountering strangers at EGU General Assembly is similar to encountering someone on a long-distance trail, or close to a remote summit: they are on the same page as you, and there is a sense of community. That said, starting a conversation is straightforward, and the topics to talk about go beyond being at a conference. Chatting with folks can give insights into how to get around and also form connections that will last much longer than the conference week.

---

If you feel that additional tips and tricks on navigating EGU would help, the Session SC1.1 today is dedicated to that very topic. In case you missed it or you could still use more guidance, you can see someone at the info desk on the ground floor, or read How to make the most of EGU26: from EGU Events Manager Jane Roussak. Happy conferencing!]]> https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/05/04/a-hikers-guide-to-the-egu-general-assembly/feed/ 0 https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/04/30/lets-get-to-work-jobs-and-careers-opportunities-at-egu26/ https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/04/30/lets-get-to-work-jobs-and-careers-opportunities-at-egu26/#comments Thu, 30 Apr 2026 12:00:04 +0000 Attending conferences is a great way to widen your existing network, meet potential employers and grow your professional skills. At EGU26, there are lots of exciting and useful career networking opportunities, training and events, regardless of whether you attend virtually or on-site in Vienna!

Jobs and careers area, and pop-up events

In the entrance foyer to Hall X2 on the Purple level are the Jobs and Careers boards in the Job spot, where you can post your CV, or find opportunities for training, networking or even employment. EGU26 also has a range of Pop-up networking events that you can organise during the week yourself, not limited to the Conference center. Want to host a session on CV writing for hydrologists in the Donaupark in the sunshine? Why not! Make sure you check back regularly throughout the week for updates. Around the conference center there are several other resources you can use, from private interview rooms (Purple level -2.81 and -2.63, ask at the Info booth for help), the EGU Networking Zone (Red level, suite C, room 2.79 and on the Purple level, outside on terrace G) and a Business Lounge (Yellow Level to the left hand side after the entrance, beside the cafe).

Short Courses

SC3.9 Scared, but prepared: Present with confidence Mon, 04 May, 16:15–18:00 (CEST) Room -2.62 (purple level) Researchers are not only expected to conduct high-quality research, but also to communicate their findings effectively to both the scientific community and the public. This requires a skillset that is often not formally taught during academic training. Presenting your work and answering questions on stage can feel daunting and nerve-wracking. In this short course, we create a supportive environment to help you overcome these fears. Experienced and enthusiastic presenters will teach practical strategies to manage presentation anxiety and you can immediately put them into practice through short pitching exercises. SC1.12 European Research Council (ERC) Funding Opportunities Tue, 05 May, 08:30–10:15 (CEST) Room -2.41/42 (purple level) The European Research Council (ERC) is a leading funding body at European level. It aims to support excellent, frontier research across all fields of science. The ERC offers various outstanding funding opportunities for investigator-driven projects, including grant budgets for individual scientists of up to €3.5 million. ERC calls are open to researchers around the world: all nationalities of applicants are welcome for projects carried out at a host institution in European Union member states or/and associated countries. The ERC is also quickly adapting to the constantly evolving research landscape, therefore at this session, the main features of ERC funding schemes will be presented, highlighting most recent changes implemented in the work programme and their effects in the evaluation. In addition, two invited speakers, an ERC grantee and a former member of the evaluation panel, will provide their own perspectives (as applicant and as evaluator) of the ERC evaluation process. SC1.9 Psychological tools to preserve mental health while navigating the challenges of a research career Tue, 05 May, 12:45–13:45 (CEST) Room -2.41/42 (purple level) A research career is not only demanding, but also full of hidden challenges that can affect both success and mental well-being. This short course is designed to provide geoscientists at any stage of their career with practical, psychology-based tools to navigate these challenges. From time-management strategies to self-care practice and ugly truths, this course offers tips and insights for building resilience and balance into your research journey, may it be in or out of academia. SC1.15 Managing Academia and parenting in society today Tue, 05 May, 14:00–15:45 (CEST) Room -2.82 (purple level) Building a successful academic career is challenging. Doing so while also raising a family can push you to your limits. Many early- and mid-career scientists grapple with balancing family life and academic responsibilities. The fear-of-missing-out dualism between family and academia causes an inner conflict and feeling of injustice and inadequacy. Families often find themselves confronted with what feels like a personal problem when, in reality, it is a shared societal issue. Modern families come in diverse forms, including dual-career parents, single parents, same-sex parents, and various shared parenting arrangements. This short course will share examples and experiences from a range of parents in academia, providing general advice, specific tips and a supportive environment to discuss challenges. SC3.12 Meet the Editors: How to peer-review – Fundamentals & EGU’s model Tue, 05 May, 16:15–18:00 (CEST) Room -2.82 (purple level) This 'Meet the Editors' short course will allow you to talk directly to EGU journal editors and learn about the insider steps to writing, revising and submitting your manuscript, as well as about EGU's public peer review and editorial process, from both sides - author and reviewer. The short course will also discuss ethical questions, such as your rights as an author and ethical responsibilities of peer review. SC1.17 Invited to interview? Prepare for success with job applications and interviews in industry and academia Wed, 06 May, 10:45–12:30 (CEST) Room -2.41/42 (purple level) The job market in both industry and academia can be a very challenging environment, especially for those either just completing a course of study, or looking to change sectors. This short course aims to bridge this gap to employment by drawing on the experience of senior career workers in both industry and academia, as well as HR professionals, to provide specific advice for anyone who is in the process of submitting a job application or preparing for interview. SC3.13 Get your writing right: A hands-on, participatory workshop to help improve writing skills Wed, 06 May, 14:00–15:45 (CEST) Room 0.55 (yellow level) Writing is difficult. Like most geoscientists, you might struggle, especially if your native tongue is not English. Writing is a skill best learnt by practice, lots of it, ideally with immediate peer feedback. It can also be a lonely job. In this hands-on, participatory workshop you will work on a writing task with colleagues, sharing inspiration and getting immediate feedback. The task illustrates in vivid fashion some key elements of writing. SC1.8 Mentorship in Motion: Navigating the Career Ladder with Guidance and Growth Thu, 07 May, 14:00–15:45 (CEST) Room -2.41/42 (purple level) Mentoring in academia is a one-to-one connection and refers to a developmentally oriented relationship between a student or a less experienced colleague (the mentee) and a more experienced student or colleague (the mentor). While mentees gain guidance and confidence, mentors often discover new perspectives, sharpen their leadership skills, and find personal fulfillment in helping someone grow. Research shows that strong mentoring relationships play a key role in academic and career success, and contribute to a more connected, resilient scientific community. But not all mentoring experiences are positive. The quality of the relationship matters. This short course explores what effective mentoring looks like, how it can empower both parties, and how to recognize and avoid poor mentoring practices. SC1.13 Careers inside and outside of academia: Panel discussion Thu, 07 May, 16:15–18:00 (CEST) Room -2.41/42 (purple level) Once you have completed your PhD a new challenge reveals itself: finding a position where you can apply your advanced skillset. This task is not always easy, and frequently a general overview of the available positions is missing. The academic pathway is often considered as the natural next step for scientists, however, in some fields, up to 70% of PhD graduates will go into work outside of academia. There are many different careers beyond academia which require or benefit from a research background, but often early career scientists struggle to make the transition due to reduced support and networking. In this panel discussion, scientists with a range of backgrounds give their advice on building a career. The panel will start by discussing common career questions, such as how to transition between academia and industry, and what are the pros and cons of a career inside and outside of academia. The session will then conclude with panellists answering questions from the audience. SC1.5 Breaking Boundaries: Mastering Research Proposals – Insights and Strategies from a Global South Perspective Thu, 07 May, 16:15–18:00 (CEST) Room -2.82 (purple level) With a visible gap in opportunities between researchers in the Global South and the Global North, and with a decline in research budget across the globe, the ability to secure funding is important to stand out in academia. However, securing this funding or position still hinges on the strength of a research proposal. To address this need, we have designed a short interactive course dedicated to the art of writing strong research proposals for securing either a research position or proposal funding. This session will offer practical techniques and tips for creating compelling proposals and will include an open discussion. Additionally, we will provide insights from funding agencies based in Global South countries, highlighting the key elements they look for in proposals and opportunities. SC1.6 Mind your head: How to navigate academic conflict Thu, 07 May, 16:15–18:00 (CEST) Room 0.55 (yellow level) Academic environments offer many opportunities for intellectual growth, development, and collaboration. However, like any community, conflict also appears. Disagreements may arise over co-authorship, mentoring expectations, department politics, or interpretations of research ethics. These situations are often complex and emotionally challenging. This Short Course helps scientists to recognize, understand, and navigate conflict in academic settings. We will also look at how conflict can lead to personal and professional growth when approached constructively. SC1.14 Transferable skills: what are they and do I have them? Fri, 08 May, 08:30–10:15 (CEST) Room -2.82 (purple level) Anyone entering the job market or looking for a new job after academia will confront the phrase ‘transferable skills’. PhD candidates and scientists are advised to highlight their transferable skills when applying for non-academic jobs, but it can be hard to know what these skills are. This interactive workshop, will help identify your transferable skills such as big data analysis, communicating your findings, supervising, teaching, project management and budgeting and many more.

Meet exhibitors and experts

EGU26 has over 50 exhibitors attending the conference, from publishing houses to instrument developers, research institutes to consultancies. Find out who will be attending and what special sessions or talks they may be running by checking out the List of Exhibitors and the list of specific Pop-up Exhibitor Events. The exhibition is located in the entrance hall on the Yellow level, directly above the entrance on the Green level and in Hall X2 on the Purple level. Exhibitors will be present during opening hours:

• Monday, 4 May to Thursday, 7 May 2026: daily from 10:00 to 18:00
• Friday, 8 May 2026: 10:00–13:00.

 

Show you're open to new opportunities

Regardless of whether you attend EGU26 on-site or virtually, your Copernicus profile offers the possibility to show you are in the market for a new job through the “Ask Me For My CV” sticker. Just enter the “My profile” section of the EGU26 homepage, click “Edit stickers” and enable the sticker via the toggle button!    

Other resources

Don't forget EGU has a range of resources on hand to help you with your career development year round. From tips on how to write a great CV from the ECS groups to Division and Union Level blog posts on a range of careers topics. We even have webinars for you to watch in preparation for the event on our YouTube channel.]]> https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2026/04/30/lets-get-to-work-jobs-and-careers-opportunities-at-egu26/feed/ 0