Related Pages
Ewing Medal Committee
2008–2010 term
Chair
Paula Coble, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, Florida
Members
Christoper Garrett, University Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Katerina Petronotis, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Karl Turekian, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
Roland von Huene, Diamond Springs, California
Staff Liaisons
Laura Skoff
Danica Williams
Committee Charge
This Committee is charged with selecting the recipient of the Maurice Ewing Medal; the final decision is subject to the approval of the Executive Committee. The Ewing Medal is given to scientists who make significant original contributions to the understanding of physical, geophysical, and geological processes in the ocean; to those who advance oceanographic engineering, technology, and instrumentation; and to those who perform outstanding service to the marine sciences. The Committee is expected to interpret the scope of the medal broadly and to keep in mind that as a Union medal it should reflect the interdisciplinary nature of the Earth and space sciences. Neither one's affiliation with a Section or Focus Group nor specific disciplinary distinctions are relevant to the choice of the recipient of this or any other Union medal. The Ewing Medal is jointly sponsored by U.S. Navy and is given not more often than annually.
In evaluating individuals, the Committee should remember that not only does the medal bring honor to the recipient but the choice of the recipients also defines the nature and the stature of the medal and of AGU itself. All candidates whose scientific contributions have achieved this level of distinction should be given equal consideration. The Committee is asked to be especially mindful of the diversity of the community of individuals encompassed by AGU.
Any AGU member may propose a candidate for the Ewing Medal. Members of the Committee should not, however, depend solely on unsolicited nominations but should be proactive by encouraging nominations through their own contacts. Of course, members of the Committee are ineligible for consideration for the medal during their terms and must not participate in discussions or deliberations where they have a conflict of interest. Similarly, members of the Executive Committee are ineligible during their terms. If at least three nominations of viable candidates are not available, the Committee is not expected to recommend a recipient.
As part of their recommendation to the Executive Committee, the Committee must state the number of candidates they considered, how many of these were holdovers and how many were new, and whether the new candidates were nominations from the general call or were actively encouraged by the Committee. The Committee is also expected to define the process used for reaching the decision. The role of the Executive Committee is to accept or reject the recommendation of the Committee on the basis of its evaluation of the process and its knowledge of the candidates. Whereas the Executive Committee may not substitute for the choice, it can ask for further clarification or additional deliberation.
All deliberations and recommendations of all medal committees must remain strictly confidential. Within this framework of confidentiality, the chair may provide feedback to nominators on possible future eligibility and on how nomination packages could be improved.
–July 2008