No abstract

<p>Scientists remain citizens and human beings. As so, they keep their critical mind and have visions for society and opinions on related crucial issues. The climate and ecological crisis makes no exception and has become the subject of more and more discussions among scientific communities. The bond between scientific research and societal issues can be seen in the common practice of national funding agencies asking scientists to explicitly define the societal values of their research activities (the so-called “knowledge utilization”). On such occasions, scientists need to prove that their findings will bring parts of technical, scientific, social, or even political solutions to a range of stakeholders, including decision-makers. Such a peculiar position raises many issues. In democracies, scientists and other experts are usually asked to remain neutral and only provide scientific and technical knowledge to support decision-makers (i.e., governments) who will make the decision.</p><p>The question of neutrality has particularly animated scientific communities for decades. May we, as scientists, activate only the rational part of our brains when doing science and activate the emotional one when we return to our daily personal and civic life? Should we remain neutral at all costs? When "business as usual" means making the ecological and social crisis more profound, does the concept of neutrality even exist? Is that ethical if doing nothing means supporting "business as usual"? Or should we admit that this is neither doable nor desirable?</p><p>In this paper, we suggest that being neutral and inactive is neither doable nor desirable for the sake of science and society. First of all, scientists are people, and their actions cannot remain completely value-free or independent from societal influences. Instead, the notions of objectivity, scientific rigor, and transparency, which all make part of scientific integrity, may be much more relevant to define good research practices. As long as these practices are followed, many ways of communicating with peers, stakeholders, and the public sphere may be considered, from appeased recommendations to stakeholders all the way down to (illegal) civil disobedience, as those may only differ by their degree of engagement in reporting the same facts. To which the ethics of responsibility should be added: we must say what we know (Resnik and Elliot, 2016).</p><p>We collected several testimonies from scientists from the earth and climate sciences engaged in activism and civil disobedience. The description of the several types of intellectual trajectories will help us understand how scientists connect their values to science and how, at their scale, their vision helps them disseminate science to improve societies and reduce their impacts on global changes.</p><p>Resnik, D. B. and Elliott, K. C.: The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science, Accountability in Research, 23, 31–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.1002608, 2016.</p>

<p>The climate and ecological crises question the role and responsibility of scientists and scientific institutions as producers and conveyers of knowledge. Decades of thorough reporting, efforts at communication towards policy makers, and strong-worded scientific warnings, have not yet lead to policy changes significant enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and halt environmental degradation. This questions whether geoscientists and scientific institutions should remain distanced from the political and societal implications of their research work, or if on the contrary they have a responsibility to lead by example and to use their position to press for urgent action on the climate and ecological crisis. </p> <p>We argue that the failure of governments and international institutions to address these crises at the appropriate scale gives scientists and scientific institutions a responsibility to be more than mere producers of knowledge.  Indeed, doing “science as usual” while warning of the ever growing urgency to act on the climate and ecological crisis risks is widening the already-existing dissonance between, on the one hand, our stated <em>raison d’être</em> and discourses and on the other hand, our everyday practice and institutional mechanisms ; effectively undermining our impact on the broader society.</p> <p>We first discuss the issue of scientific institutions and the scientific community at large not yet leveling with the urgency to address the climate and ecological crises. A prominent example is that despite repeated campaigns for universities to severe ties with the fossil industry, most  are still accepting sponsoring and research funding from fossil companies, which contributes to the legitimization of companies that have been and are still actively opposing effective climate action. While some universities are taking initiatives to limit carbon intensive behavior such as flying, serve plant-based food as a standard, stop accepting polluting companies on campuses, or include climate education in all curriculums, these are still individual initiatives, dependent on the voluntary mobilization from student and staff.</p> <p> We then argue that we, as geoscientists, can not only lead by example with individual changes to our lives, but can also have a strong impact when engaging in collective action, pressing our universities and governments to enact strong climate and environmental policies. Public engagement of universities, of other scientific institutions, and of scientists can amplify and legitimize the voice of the climate and environmental movements in a mutually beneficial science-society approach, notably because the former produce the very scientific knowledge empowering these movements.  We propose to discuss recent examples, including from our own experience, of the impact of scientists engaging in demonstrations and civil disobedience as part of environmental groups, at the ethical level, but also regarding consequences within and outside of academic circles.</p>

Supplementary Data. Measurements of the specimens studied. Each one is identified with a catalogue number that is composed of the initials of the outcrop (PO: Polvoeira; OU: Pedra do Ouro; PÑ: Peñarrubia; ER: Rodiles East; MUJA: Jurassic Museum of Asturias) accompanied by the number of the level, follow by the specimen/sample number. A third digit could appear, indicating the individual number in a sample with different specimens. The number of the layer can be accompanied by a letter "b", "m" or "t", meaning the base (b), the middle (m) and top (t) of the layer respectively. It could also appear the letters "i" and "s", which mean lower (i) and upper (s).The letter "Z" has been used to refer the number of ribs in the last half whorl. The linear measurements consider are: D (maximum diameter); U (umbilical diameter); Wh (last whorl high); Ww (last whorl width) and Ah (apertural high). All of them are given in millimetres, taken to 0.1 mm accuracy.Numbers in italics mean that measurement is approximate (circa) due to fragmentation or deficient state of preservation. Two indexes are also considered: U/D and WER. U/D is the percentage of the umbilicus diameter in the maximum diameter (U/D*100). WER is the initials for whorl expansion rate, calculated following Korn's (2000) equation (WER=[D/(D-Ah)]^2). As the apertural high (Ah) is a measure hard to get in these specimens, its calculation has been possible only in few cases.

The Palaeontological and Archaeological Museum "Ildefonso Recio Valverde" was recently opened in Totanés (Toledo). The material included in this museum mostly belonged to the personal collection of I. Recio, who donated it to this municipality to contribute to the dissemination of Palaeontology and Archaeology. Its creation, and the even more recent discovery of a Neolithic cromlech in its vicinity, provides this small village with great potential to become a centre for heritage tourism and scientifi c outreach. This paper presents the process of arranging the museum and cataloguing the palaeontological collection, as well as outlining its value as a local museum.