Geoethics and geological culture:awareness, responsibility and challenges

Silvia Peppoloni, Giuseppe Di Capua

Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy

ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 55, 3, 2012; doi: 10.4401/ag-6099

ABSTRACT

The international debate in the field of geoethics focuses on some ofthe most important environmental emergencies, while highlighting thegreat responsibilities of geoscientists, whatever field they work in, andthe important social, cultural and economic repercussions that theirchoices can have on society. The Geoitalia 2009 and 2011 conferencesthat were held in Rimini and Turin, respectively, and were organized bythe Italian Federation of Earth Science, were two important momentsfor the promotion of geoethics in Italy. They were devoted to thehighlighting of how, and with what tools and contents, can thegeosciences contribute to the cultural renewal of society. They alsocovered the active roles of geoscientists in the dissemination of scientificinformation, contributing in this way to the correct construction ofsocial knowledge. Geology is culture, and as such it can help to dispelmisconceptions and cultural stereotypes that concern naturalphenomena, disasters, resources, and land management. Geologicalculture consists of methods, goals, values, history, ways of thinkingabout nature, and specific sensitivity for approaching problems andtheir solutions. So geology has to fix referenced values, as indispensableprerequisites for geoethics. Together, geological culture and geoethics canstrengthen the bond that joins people to their territory, and can help tofind solutions and answers to some important challenges in the comingyears regarding natural risks, resources, and climate change. Startingfrom these considerations, we stress the importance of establishing anethical criterion for Earth scientists, to focus attention on the issue ofthe responsibility of geoscientists, and the need to more clearly definetheir scientific identity and the value of their specificities.

1. IntroductionGeoethics is the study and promotion of the evalua-

tion and protection of the geosphere. Even thoughgeoethics is increasingly present in the scientific confer-ences (e.g. International Geological Congress, Mining Pri-bram Symposium, Geoitalia Conference, EGU GeneralAssembly), its analyses and debates have not reached a sig-nificant maturity. This new discipline is not accompaniedby an adequate research base and a satisfactory number

of scientific publications, which are the essential refer-ences for its future development.

Also, the themes of geoethics cannot easily find spacein the most reliable scientific journals, and this severely re-stricts the dissemination of their contents and the develop-ment of a critical stance towards the ethical, social andcultural implications of Earth sciences in the scientific com-munity. The researchers are anxious to respond to the ‘pub-lish or perish’ logic, and they often tend to neglect geoethicsarguments, although some of them would like to devotethemselves to the study of geoethics in depth. So researchon geoethics, as a both scientific and humanistic discipline,is not developing, and its contribution to the correct con-struction of social knowledge is missing, such that societytends to become culturally poorer.

Based on these considerations, it is increasingly ur-gent to give greater strength and exposure to geoethicsthemes, so that they are recognized and appreciated bythe whole scientific community. Geoethics needs to getout of confined areas of discussion and to become a mo-ment of reflection, above all for geoscientists to have theopportunity to ask questions about themselves, the qual-ity of their work, and their contribution to the healthyprogress of humanity.

2. Geoethics themes The international debate in the field of geoethics fo-

cuses on some of the most important environmentalemergencies, like the greenhouse effect and climate desta-bilization, and pollution and problems of waste disposal.Geoethics is concerned to encourage critical analysis of theuse of our natural resources, to promote correct informa-tion of natural hazards and the development of environ-mentally friendly technologies, while also extending itsprinciples to planetary protection [Martínez-Frías et al. 2011].It is a discipline that is targeted primarily to provide refer-ences and guidelines of behavior in relation to concrete prob-

Article historyReceived February 1, 2012; accepted March 1, 2012.Subject classification:Education, History of science, Public issues, General (Philosophy of Earth sciences).

335

lems of human life, and to seek the appropriate solutions. Among its intents, there is also the promotion of the

social role of the geosciences, to involve the communityin the idea of a common and shared ‘geological’ heritage,which is considered as having cultural, educational andscientific value, as well as social capital. So, the goal of thegeosciences is to steer society into the choice of appro-priate behaviors towards real problems of human life, totry to find solutions that are compatible with the protec-tion of Nature and territory.

The international debate has highlighted the great re-sponsibilities of geoscientists, whatever field they work in(public or institutional fields, the private sphere, or theworld of research, teaching or scientific information), andthe important social, cultural and economic repercussionson society of their choices [Varet 2007]. This is especiallytrue when problems related to natural hazards are con-sidered, and in Italy this aspect is particularly evident [DiCapua and Peppoloni 2009, Peppoloni 2009].

Geoethics should promote reflection and considera-tion of the following themes:

– the comparison with global geological problems, soas to identify in the complexity those elements that, althoughdistinguishing, can unite in pursuit of common goals;

– the rational and sustainable use of our georesources;– the proper and correct dissemination of the results

of scientific studies and of responsible information onrisks, which allows researchers to gain the confidence ofthe community, to ensure the quality of research products;

– the help towards efficient management of emer-gencies, to protect the community from geological haz-ards at critical moments;

– the improvement of the relationships between thescientific community, the mass media and public opinion,

through constant and qualified participation in the spacesoffered by the media;

– the respect of the law and the support of policy de-cisions;

– the organization of effective teaching tools to de-velop awareness, values and correct behavior;

– the identification of new elements, both in termsof content and activities, that can be directed towards newrelations and cultural and ethical views;

– the transfer of the cultural values of the environ-ment to those who inhabit it;

– the promotion of working groups within universi-ties and professional associations, for the development ofthe topics listed above, also with a flexible and prudent per-spective for the reconsideration of scientific certainties andfor reflection on the mutability of knowledge and roles.

3. Geological cultureJames Hutton (1726-1797), Charles Darwin (1809-

1882) and Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) contributed activelyto change the cultural horizons of their times (Figure 1).In his theory of ‘Deep Time’, Hutton was the first to in-tuit the real age of the Earth: millions of years, and notonly the 6,000 years deduced from the Bible. Darwin chal-lenged the view of the nineteenth century Creationists,arguing that man descended from monkeys, and is one ofthe many species produced by evolution. In the earlytwentieth century, Wegener cast the certainties of the Au-toctonists into crisis by asserting that the continents arerafts adrift on the surface of the Earth.

These geoscientists influenced the cultural world oftheir times, and they revolutionized the way in which hu-mans perceive themselves, by changing their references ofspace and time. Today, they are considered among the fa-

PEPPOLONI AND DI CAPUA

336

Figure 1. Left to right: James Hutton (1726-1797), Charles Darwin (1809-1882), and Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) (from http://en.wikipedia.org).

337

thers of modern geology, although they were strongly ob-structed by the defenders of knowledge who were consid-ered most authoritative in their times.

Culture is the soul of civilization, and it is not only fixedideas and constraints. Science is culture. Geology (in thebroad and noblest sense of the term) is a science. Thus, ge-ology is culture, and as such, it can help to dispel miscon-ceptions and cultural stereotypes concerning naturalphenomena, disasters, resources and land management.Geological culture consists of methods, goals, values, his-tory, ways of thinking about Nature, and a specific sensitiv-ity for approaching problems and their solutions [Peppoloni2007, 2008]. So in the approach to the problems concerningthe relationships between man and Nature, geology shouldnot be reduced only to codes of behavior.

Together with other sciences, geology has helped ex-traordinarily and originally to change the way in whichwe perceive time and space. Geology has posed problemsof philosophy, and has made, and makes, culture; we haveno geoethical solutions if we do not consider geology asa part of our culture.

4. Geoethics and geological culture in ItalyThe reflection on the ethical aspects of the geo-

sciences started in Italy around the 1970’s, within the widerdebate on the philosophy and sociology of the Earth sci-ences. Some geoscientists began to reflect on the ethicalvalue of their geological knowledge. One of the promot-ers of these reflections was Felice Ippolito (1915-1997), ageologist and also an engineer. Although Ippolito was nota philosopher, he developed philosophical topics related tothe geosciences, such as the relationships between geosci-entists and Nature. He wondered what kind of science ge-ology is, what is its way of investigating (both throughmathematical models and through the observation of realphenomena), as it is halfway between an exact science, likemathematics, and an empirical science. He considered thesocial value and function of our technical–scientific knowl-edge, and then the relationships between geosciences andpolicy. He emphasized that who has scientific knowledgemust assume the responsibility to act in an ethical sense,turning this technical knowledge into ethical action, sotaking into account the common good and the public use[Ippolito 1968]. Ippolito’s reflections demonstrated a long-standing commitment by Italian geoscientists to philo-sophical, social and ethical themes related to theirgeological activities, even before all of this set of issues wasdefined with the word ‘geoethics’ [Nemec 2005].

Along these lines, from the 1970’s to date, severalstudies on geological knowledge in terms of culture havebeen produced by Sandra Piacente and Mario Panizza[Panizza 1989, Panizza and Piacente 1991, Piacente 1999,Panizza and Piacente 2003, Piacente and Poli 2003]. Their

contributions have provided a new way of understandinggeology, of going beyond simple definitions, to outlinenew perspectives for the geosciences. They fostered im-proved understanding of the value of geological heritageas an element of cultural identity, not exclusively attrib-utable to local territorial realities, but generalizable to thewhole experience of our human race. Over time, the stud-ies of these and other Italian authors contributed to theachievement of concrete and prestigious objectives, as in2009, with the recognition of the Dolomites by UNESCOas a World Heritage Site (Figure 2).

Since 2000, thanks to Sandra Piacente, Caesare Rodaand Carlo Bosi, sessions within the Geoitalia conferenceshave been organized, not only as strictly technical, but alsodedicated to general topics, such as epistemological re-search in Earth sciences. In 2009, for the first time in Italy,a session on geoethics was organized, followed by a sec-ond session in 2011. The large number of participants, thequality of the contents that were offered, and the growinginterest in these topics led to the creation of a GeoethicsCommittee within the Italian Federation of Earth Sci-ences (FIST), which brings together all of the most im-portant associations of geoscientists and researchinstitutions in Italy. The Geoethics Committee is workingwith the intent of promoting and evaluating geoethicsthemes, and of organizing events on geoethics: among thevarious proposals, the most original is the formulation ofan oath for geoscientists, modeled on that of the Hippo-cratic Oath for doctors [Matteucci 2012, this issue], whichwill support and motivate new graduates on their Gradu-ation Day; i.e. at the moment of their official entry intothe world of geoscientists.

The last important event on geoethics was promotedby Italian geoscientists in an international venue (togetherwith English, American and Norwegian colleagues): thesession organized for the first time at the European Geo-sciences Union (EGU) General Assembly (Vienna, April2012). The session focused on geoethics in relation to nat-ural hazards, with specific attention to the communication,education and science–policy–practice interface. Twenty-four authors from 15 different countries offered reflectionson the future of our planet, on ethical questions in riskmanagement, on significant differences between problemsin developing and developed countries, on scientific com-munication for risk reduction, on the choice of tools andstrategies to increase awareness about risks, on educationin schools, and on the relationships between geoscientists,the mass media, politicians and the population.

5. The Geoitalia conferences The Geoitalia 2009 (Rimini) and 2011 (Turin) confer-

ences organized by FIST were two important momentsfor the promotion of geoethics in Italy. Researchers and

GEOETHICS AND GEOLOGICAL CULTURE

professionals from different disciplines reflected on anddiscussed the most effective strategies and methodologicalapproaches that need to be put into place for developingappropriate attitudes and forms of critical thinking onthese issues. In 2009, in Rimini, the first Italian session ongeoethics was a comforting success. The theme of the ses-sion was a reflection of the cultural and social responsi-bility of geologists in the third millennium. In 2011, inTurin, this success was confirmed, with the participationof 34 speakers, a number that exceeded even that of theinternational session at the 33rd IGC in Oslo (2008) andother international meetings where geoethics is usuallyamong the disciplines debated. The speakers coveredmany disciplinary fields, and geologists, philosophers, so-ciologists, geophysicists, seismologists, psychologists, nat-uralists, anthropologists, and many others, attended thesession. This thus gave the signal that a multidisciplinaryapproach to geoethics topics is helpful, to contribute to acultural renewal of society. This is necessary and urgentfor an increased awareness of the responsibilities of hu-manity with respect to environmental change, and withrespect to exploitation of territories and of their resources.

With the aim of opening the world of the Earth sci-ences to the wider world of culture, and of looking fordifferent viewpoints about not only the technical–scien-tific role, but also the cultural role of geoscientists, evensome prominent intellectuals were invited to the session.Prof. Franco Ferrarotti (Professor emeritus and world-fa-mous sociologist) emphasized the strong social impact ofgeological research and practice, speaking of the media as

a subject that should as-sist with correct scientificinformation, of the un-derestimated role of geo-scientists in Italy, and ofItalian society that is stillnot accustomed to listen-ing to their warnings[Peppoloni 2012a, thisissue].

Prof. Giorello (oneof the most prominentphilosophers of science)praised the importantcontribution of the Earthsciences in the promo-tion of the major culturalchanges that have oc-curred through history,framing this set of disci-plines in ethical and epis-temological terms. Hespoke about the precau-

tionary principle, the uncertainty concept in the Earth sci-ences, and the probability calculation as a tool for theevaluation of natural risks. He also reflected on the rela-tionships between politicians and citizens, by defining ge-ology as “a red thread that allows us to go ahead”[Peppoloni 2012b, this issue].

Other contributions regarded geological risks and thepublic sentiments about them, deontological aspects ofgeological practice, with particular reference to issues oflegality, evaluation criteria of geological research, the roleof geologists working in public administration, impor-tance of geological didactics in schools, sustainability andgeoresources exploitation, geodiversity, and cultural andsocial aspects in land management.

6. Individual and social responsibility of geoscientists If it is true that geoethics is the investigation and re-

flection on the operational behavior of man towards thegeosphere, it is therefore necessary to identify a criterionfor the selection of values on which to base that behaviorso that it is ethically correct. However, the question re-garding the responsibilities of those working in the field ofthe geosciences has to be discussed, putting the geoscien-tists at the centre of the ethical matters [Peppoloni 2008],as experts on the territory and on all its hazards, as re-searchers, and as operators in public and institutionalfields, in professional spheres, and in the fields of educa-tion and science communication. In each of these fields,the importance of the role that geoscientists have in soci-ety is evident, with the need to define in a better way the

PEPPOLONI AND DI CAPUA

338

Figure 2. The Dolomites (from http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolomiti).

339

scientific identity of geoscientists, the values of their speci-ficity. Finally, there is the need to requalify their profes-sionalism, beginning from a more aware taking on ofresponsibility in the tasks that they have to perform.

An in-depth etymological analysis of the word‘geoethics’ [Peppoloni 2011] disclosed an original doublemeaning: on the one hand, it contains a sense of belong-ing to the social dimension, while on the other hand, it isrelated to the individual sphere. These two existential con-ditions (social and individual) co-exist unexpectedly in theword ‘geoethics’. So, geoethics can be defined on onehand as investigation and reflection on the operational be-havior of man towards the geosphere, and on the otherhand as the analysis of the relationships between geosci-entists who act, and on their own actions.

Therefore, the origin of the word ‘geoethics’ givesgeoscientists the indication that they cannot ignore the eth-ical aspect of their activities. The etymology of ‘geoethics’calls geoscientists to face this responsibility. However,what does this responsibility of geoscientist consist of ?And what motivations are needed to push geoscientists topractice the Earth sciences in an ethical way?

7. An ethical criterion for the scholars of the Earth Werner Heisenberg (Figure 3) asserted : “Natural sci-

ence not simply describes and interprets Nature, but it isa part of the interface between Nature and ourselves…”[Heisenberg 1958]. This means that through their activi-ties and their personal research, the scholars of Nature,and therefore also geoscientists, have the opportunity toperfect themselves.

As geoscientists are searchers after truth, their scien-tific research or their professional activities might thereforeconstitute for them the way to their personal contact withthe truth of the phenomena they study, and at the sametime with the truth about themselves. It is primarily forself-respect that scientific truths have to be affirmed withintellectual honesty, so that research makes sense and sci-entific discoveries are transformed into a real service to so-ciety. The knowledge and experience of these phenomenamakes us assume a habit of appropriate behavior, whichbecomes a personal and social discipline that as geoscien-tists, we have to follow in the management of our Earth.

Therefore, it is important to establish the ethical cri-teria for Earth scientists, fixing intellectual honesty pre-cisely as the indispensable prerequisite. This requires:

– respect for the truth that we look for, and for theideas of others;

– recognition of the value of others, as valuable forourselves;

– a spirit of collaboration and reciprocity;– identification of a common goal, despite the diver-

sity of views;

– responsibility of our technical–cultural expertise andcare for the quality of research and its correct dissemination;

– opening to comparisons, even with the perspectiveof a resizing of our certainties;

– reflection on the mutability of knowledge and roles;– awareness that conveying scientific knowledge to

others has great value.In line with these considerations, in the same moment

in which geoscientists are involved in scientific or profes-sional activities, on the one hand they assume the respon-sibility to put their expertise to the service of others, andon the other hand they have the responsibility towardsthemselves to do their best, aware of the commitmentsgiven. The results that we reach with our activities mustbe guided by respect for the truth of knowledge and intel-lectual honesty. Otherwise our activities are emptied ofmeaning. Only on this basis can our activities become areal service for others.

8. Cultural, social and ethical implications of thegeosciences, and future challenges

Geological culture and geoethics can strengthen thelinks between people and their land, between the places oftheir origins and their own memories. These links are agreat resource in a reality such as the Italian one, wherecultural and natural heritage are often indivisible: man, artand Nature together constitute the territory. The aware-ness of the importance of their value, a common value tobe shared and from which to draw upon, can encouragethe identification of new elements, both in terms of thecontents and the activities, which serves to direct us to-wards new cultural, social and ethical perspectives.

Geoethics is a great opportunity for the scientific com-munity to provide formal and substantial value to the com-mitment of science for the benefit of citizens andinstitutions. Moreover, like any other sciences, the geo-sciences have a value especially in reference to the im-provement of human qualities and to the satisfying ofhuman needs. The great challenge of geoethics is above allto awaken in the scientific community reflection on itscharacteristics and prerogatives. We need to question some

GEOETHICS AND GEOLOGICAL CULTURE

Figure 3.Werner Heisenberg

(1901-1976) (from:http://www.spaceand

motion.com).

significant points so that the debate on geoethics makesprogress in the coming years. These should include:

– How to identify and articulate an ethical criterionfor geoscientists?

– Where should the line be drawn between preserva-tion and economic development of the geosphere, espe-cially in low-income countries?

– How can the freedom of research and actions becombined with the principles of sustainability?

– How can the relationships between geoscientists,the media, politicians and citizens be made more prof-itable, particularly in the defense against natural hazards?

– What communication and educational strategiesshould be adopted to transfer the value of the geosciencesto society?

Many researchers have been occupied for years in thesearch for the answers to these questions, but the answerswe have even now are not yet sufficient. Perhaps it is nec-essary that next to ‘doing’ and ‘how to do’, geoscientistsmust feel even more strongly the need to reflect on thevalue of their acting, because only a conscious and gen-uine recognition of the profound value of an action canallow the effective transfer to the community of those val-ues. In this way we can foster a real and long-lasting root-edness of practices, codes and regulations.

A great historical responsibility is in the hands of thegeoscientists of the third millennium: to demonstratethat geological knowledge is really a benefit to hu-mankind, and that their contribution can be decisive insearching for a new equilibrium in the relationships be-tween man and Nature. However, to move in this direc-tion and to obtain concrete results, it will be necessaryto develop the awareness of being able to do, to assumethe responsibility to do, and to maintain this with a con-stant will.

9. Conclusions Geoethics does not exist without a real awareness by

the scientific community of the cultural value of theEarth sciences. Otherwise, there is the risk that geoethicswill become just another bureaucratic constraint on thefreedom of research and actions, a new set of bonds im-posed but not perceived in their value, to limit practicesand ideas. Geoethics can become a pretext to lock up theresearcher and the whole of society in a moralistic way, inthe contraposition between what is right and what iswrong, what we have to do, and what not to do. Instead,geoethics has to be above all an opportunity for geosci-entists to raise the awareness of their individual and socialresponsibility, an occasion to improve our understandingof the space and time in which we move and operate,with the perspective of the spiritual and economicprogress of humanity.

ReferencesDi Capua, G., and S. Peppoloni (2009). Scientific informa-

tion: problems and responsibilities, In: Proceedings ofthe Mining Pribram Symposium, International sessionon Geoethics, Pribram (Czech Republic); available atwww.earth-prints.org/handle/2122/5455.

Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy: the revo-lution in modern science, Harper & Brothers Publish-ers, 206 pp.; consulted edition: Fisica e filosofia,Milano, Nuove Edizioni Tascabili, 2003.

Ippolito, F. (1968). La natura e la storia, Milano, VanniScheiwiller.

Martínez-Frías, J., J.L. González and F. Rull Perez (2011).Geoethics and deontology: from fundamentals to ap-plications in planetary protection, Episodes, 34 (4),257-262.

Matteucci, R., G. Gosso, S. Peppoloni, S. Piacente and J.Wasowski (2012). A Hippocratic Oath for geologists?,Annals of Geophysics, 55 (3), 365-369; doi:10.4401/ag-5650.

Nemec, V. (2005). Developing geoethics as a new disci-pline, http://www.bgs.ac.uk/agid/Downloads/VN05Geoethics.pdf.

Panizza, M. (1989). Beni geologici e cultura del paesaggio,In: Atti Convegno Internazionale Accademia Nazionaledei Lincei ( June 26-28, 1989), Roma, 85-86.

Panizza, M., and S. Piacente (1991). Relationship betweencultural resources and the natural environment, In: Pro-ceedings of the European Symposium. Science, Tech-nology and European Cultural Heritage (Bologna, June13-16, 1989), Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 787-793.

Panizza, M., and S. Piacente (2003). Geomorfologia cul-turale, Bologna, Pitagora Editrice.

Peppoloni, S. (2007). The problem of the scientific knowl-edge and the authoritativeness of the Earth sciences,In: Geoitalia 2007, Sesto Forum Italiano di Scienze dellaTerra (Rimini, September 12-14, 2007), Epitome; doi:10.1474/Epitome.02.1318.Geoitalia2007.

Peppoloni, S. (2008). Riflessioni filosofiche sull’identità el’autorevolezza delle Scienze della Terra, Geoitalia(Federazione Italiana di Scienze della Terra), 22, 3-6.

Peppoloni, S. (2009). Reflection cues on the cultural andsocial responsibility of the geologist in the third mil-lennium, In: IX International Conference “New Ideasin Earth Sciences”, 3rd vol., Russian State GeologicalProspecting University, Moscow.

Peppoloni, S. (2011). Che cosa significa “Geoetica”? Den-tro le parole, il senso dell’attività del geologo, Geoitalia(Federazione Italiana di Scienze della Terra), 34, 12-13.

Peppoloni, S. (2012a). Social aspects of the Earth sciences.Interview with Prof. Franco Ferrarotti, Annals of Geo-physics, 55 (3), 347-348; doi:10.4401/ag-5632.

Peppoloni, S. (2012b). Ethical and cultural value of the

PEPPOLONI AND DI CAPUA

340

341

Earth sciences. Interview with Prof. Giulio Giorello,Annals of Geophysics, 55 (3), 343-346; doi: 10.4401/ag-5755.

Piacente, S. (1999). Sensibilità geologica e consenso so-ciale, Mem. Descr. Carta Geol. d’It., 54, 451-454.

Piacente, S., and G. Poli, eds. (2003). La memoria dellaTerra, la terra della Memoria, Bologna, L’inchiostrobluEditore.

Varet, J. (2007), Global approach to geoethics: a first at-tempt, In: Mining Pribram Symposium, Internationalsession on Geoethics (Pribram, Czech Republic), Ab-stract.

Contacts: Silvia Peppoloni, Giuseppe Di Capua,Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy;email: silvia.peppoloni@ingv.it, giuseppe.dicapua@ingv.it.

© 2012 by the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. Allrights reserved.

GEOETHICS AND GEOLOGICAL CULTURE