Group 3: Geoscience dilemma Group 3: Earth Science Samar Amini Kaycee Okoli Beatriz Montano Tobias Mattsson

Background Geoscientists are often funded by companies that profit from producing products that have a negative effect on the environment (e.g. from oil and mining companies). Climate change induced by human emmisions are no longer a theory, but a fact. Reversing this change will be one of the hardest challenges this generation will face. (Johan Rockström, 2009).

Volcanic activity generates heat that produces oil. The main purpose researchers get money to study magmatic intrusions in oil-bearing rocks, is to help oil companies in their future exploration. This research generates a lot of information on how magmatic intrusions work, which might also be used in volcano-hazard and risk-assessment at active volcanoes and might be crucial in saving infrastructure and human lives. Background dilemma

You are an environmentally-conscious researcher studying volcanoes and their effect on climate change. You bike to work, try not to eat meat and recycle. You find it increasingly difficult to get funding from government agencies to do your volcano-research that might help predict volcano-eruptions and understand climate change.

Dilemma You are thinking of applying for funds from an oil company in order to continue with your research on magmatic intrusions. But you are hesitant if this is the right thing to do, because you might help the oil company to ‘destroy the world’. What do you, as a scientist, do? Without funding you can’t do your research for understanding volcanoes (information that is beneficial for risk- assessment) and you have no livelihood. On the other hand, helping the oil companies to find more oil will pollute the atmosphere.

Solutions: Apply for funding from an oil company? Only apply for funding from government agencies? Retire and fully embrace a zero-impact lifestyle.

Environment Societal interests Oil industryScientist welfare Funding from oil company + Simultaneously doing research about climate change. - More CO 2 into atmosphere. + Better hazard and risk-assessment at volcanoes and understanding of climate change. - You help promote more pollution. + Helps their public image. Find more oil. - They spend money on research that is not profitable for the company. + Funding to do research. Livelihood. - Goes against the personal beliefs. Only funding from government + Funding for project that only focuses on environmental aspects. - Less or no funding money for research about climate. + If funded, research on understanding volcanoes and climate. Helps saving the human race. - If not funded, no research about volacano-hazards or climate change + Easy to find another party to do the research. - Maybe not the best researcher for the job. + Conscience unaffected. - Might not get funding for studying volcanoes or to do research at all. No livelihood. Retire and become a self – sustained person + Zero climate impact. - No research on understanding the environment. + Show people that a zero emission lifestyle works. No climate impact. - No research about volcano-hazards or climate change. + Easy to find another party to do the research. - Maybe not the best researcher for the job. + Happy with environmentally friendly life choices. - Hard life, not a lot of spare time and money.

Is there a good solution?