The proximity of a hotspot to a spreading center may result in the channeling of atmosphere to the section of rise crest closest to the hotspot. This produces more basalt and thicker crust at these locations, thus forming a plateau over time. The geometric constraints of such a model predict a unique orientation, location, and age progression for a plateau formed by this mechanism. The hotspot will channel material to the closest part of the rise; therefore the orientation of the plateau will differ from that of a hotspot track by the component of absolute motion perpendicular to the rise axis. The plateau will be symmetric with respect to the location of the rise axis at the time of formation. Also, the age progression of the plateau will be contemporaneous with the age of formation of the seafloor on either side because the plateau is seafloor, just with thicker crust. A set of reconstructions based upon magnetic isochrones and a fixed hotspot reference frame is presented for the Norwegian‐Greenland Sea as a means of evaluating the model's predictions. By locating the Iceland hotspot, reconstructing the relative positions of the Greenland and European plates, and then assuming material would be channeled from the hotspot to the closest section of the rise crest, we can trace the tectonic evolution of the Greenland‐Faeroe and Vøring plateaus. The model is able to locate the plateaus, explain their orientations, and predict an age progression that satisfies observed age determinations. The analysis demonstrates that both plateaus could have been formed by the Iceland hotspot with the Greenland‐Faeroe Plateau being in effect a continuation of the Vøring Plateau, which was cut off due to transform motion between the northern and southern spreading centers.

Lithospheric rifting, while prevalent in the continents, rarely occurs in oceanic regions. To explain this preferential rifting of continents, we compare the total strength of different lithospheres by integrating the limits of lithospheric stress with depth. Comparisons of total strength indicate that continental lithosphere is weaker than oceanic lithosphere by about a factor of 3. Also, a thickened crust can halve the total strength of normal continental lithosphere. Because the weakest area acts as a stress guide, any rifting close to an ocean‐continent boundary would prefer a continental pathway. This results in the formation of small continental fragments or microplates that, once accreted back to a continent during subduction, are seen as displaced terranes. In addition, the large crustal thicknesses associated with suture zones would, ironically, make such areas likely locations for future rifting episodes. This results in the tendency, described as the Wilson Cycle, of new oceans to open along the suture where a former ocean had closed.

Previous plate tectonic reconstructions have tried to recreate the pre‐rifting (Pangea) configuration of the continents by matching contours or lineaments that are thought to represent the continental boundaries. Such reconstructions have the inherent assumptions that no extension occurs within the continent during rifting, that the continental boundaries are isochrons, and that the continents rift without distortion. This paper proposes a model for continental breakup with distortion, where ocean basins are formed by propagating rifts. This model challenges the assumptions made by previous reconstructions and presents a new method for representing the prerift geometry of the continents. As rifts propagate through a continent, the region in front of the rift extends by continental faulting and crustal thinning while the region behind the rift expands by seafloor spreading. The propagating rift model implies that large amounts of continental extension (up to 150 km) occur and that the continental boundaries are not isochrons. This extension due to rifting results in ‘apparent’ overlap when the continents are returned to their original configuration. Because of the gradational nature of this extension, the best representation of the pre‐rift configuration is obtained by matching the initial rifting point and having overlap increase in the direction of rift propagation. The overlap is equivalent to the amount of extension that has taken place on both continental edges. Reconstructions based on this model are presented for the Gulf of California, the Gulf of Aden, the Norwegian‐Greenland Sea, and the South Atlantic Ocean. They are able to resolve the discrepancies that occur when rigid plate tectonics are applied. This model has implications that can be used to predict the age and structure of the continental shelves and the location and orientation of the oldest magnetic isochrons.

Following the Soviet launch of Sputnik, Congress responded to the perceived technology gap in the United States by passing the National Defense Education Act that funded new science, math, and foreign language programs in American schools. As one college president argued in the 1960s: colleges and universities were now "bastions of our defense, as essential as . . . supersonic bombers." Today, however, cries of technology gaps are viewed skeptically by a nation more concerned with battling the federal deficit than with fighting communism. After four decades of unquestioned federal support for science under the broad justification of superpower competition, the scientific community now finds its long-term benefits evaluated against short-term goals. As observed bv a nrevious director of the National Science Foun-, dation, "the days CI? throwing money over the wall are over." So far, the response of the scientific communitv to the change in funding climate has been largelv one of denial. Following our deconstructionist instincts, we choylse to blame the publG's'lack of appreciation for our work on their "scientific illiteracv." Presumably, if these ~e o~l e had only been will-. .ing to tough out more courses in phys~cs, chemistry, and math, the return on the public investment in basic research would be obvious bevond the requirement of ex~lanation.T o help defend ourselves against future funding shortfails, we have indignantly come forward with a litany of examples for how science has improved our society. While hailing our successes, we artfully dodge questions about why we have not found solutions to such seemingly simple yet intractable problems as waste disposal, natural hazards, and disease control. In doing so, we gloss over the scientific process and create the impression that our results are answers that are good for all time.But science is not about providing answers to society's problems. Rather science provides a way to address systematically problems on the basis of an understanding of the natural world. Each conclusion is merelv the best hv~othesis to fit the available data. When the , L debate has strong economic, n a t i o k l security, or health implications, the problems become long equations with many variables, only a few of which may be scientific or technical in nature. High-level nuclear waste, for example, will not be buried under Manhattan, no matter how suitable the geology. As scientists, we are called upon to find the best solution that fits within political, social, and economic boundary conditions. As the boundary conditions inevitably change, scientists appear to disagree, the media reports on the controversy, and the public watches in frustration. Uncomfortable with moral implications and value iudements, we remain outside the mainstream of the decision-makine and allow a " " policy-makers to set the course while we criticize from afar. The arguments we constructed for the scientificallv illiterate now sound self-serving, and we find ourselves amone the followers of change ;ather than...