The panel considering updates to this position statement has been asked to review recent scientific progress in our understanding of natural hazards. The panel will also be considering evidence on how human activities may have made our society even more vulnerable to the impacts of natural hazards. AGU members are invited to provide comments to be considered in updating this policy statement.

As published in Eos | Position Statement | Procedures for Developing Union Positions

Since 1981 AGU has vigorously supported the teaching of evolution in the classroom and has opposed all efforts to require or promote teaching any religious tenet as science. Within this basic policy framework, AGU members are invited to provide comments that may be taken into consideration by the panel who is charged with providing an update of this position statement. Among other issues, the panel has been asked to reflect on the centrality of evolution and how it can be emphasized as a major unifying concept in the understanding of our planet.

As published in Eos | Position Statement | Procedures for Developing Union Positions

What is it like to work at the U.S. National Science Foundation as a program director? Is this something you are contemplating? Many consider temporary service as a “rotator” at NSF the best way to learn about how NSF works and to experience directly how scientists contribute to the process of funding and charting new research programs and directions. If you have questions, or other perspectives to add to the ones expressed in this Forum article, please contribute these to the on-line forum on being a rotator at NSF.

As published in Eos.

AGU has deliberately made the pages of Eos open to differing views. Two authors recently questioned whether AGU went too far in publishing a criticism by the Council of American Quaternary Society of the actions of another society. Should AGU have published the AMQUA criticism and the responses to it? What is your opinion?

As published in Eos.

Over time the pages of Eos have contained strong and diverse viewpoints on the journal review process. Much of the debate has centered on whether it should be mandatory or voluntary that the identity of the reviewer be known to the author of the article. This or other ways to change the review process are the subject of this Eos Discussion.

Items on this topic appeared in the following issues of Eos:

1 Jul 2003 | 29 Jul 2003 | 23 Sep 2003 | 30 Sep 2003 | 23 Dec 2003 | 30 Dec 2003 | 20 Apr 2004

Journals in the Earth and space sciences have traditionally been limited to scientific theory, observations, and conclusions. Doron Nef tested this view by approaching 13 journals about the publication of a nontraditional article and described the response in Eos. He said, “as natural scientists, our job should be to explain the nature, not only as far as it advances the natural sciences but also as far as it advances philosophy, religion, and other branches of the social sciences.” Others have suggested that journal articles should be allowed to comment on public policy issues. This online discussion is your opportunity to opine on the extent to which scientific journals should extend their traditional scopes - or not.

As published in Eos: 26 September 2006 | 17 October 2006