Early Career

One of the key aims of the EarthCube initiative is increasing accessibility of geoscience to early career researchers.

Sixty-eight early career geoscientists, computer scientists, and others gathered
(with NSF support) at the Carnegie Institution for Science on October 16-17, 2012 to
construct a shared vision for success with respect to the cyberinfrastructure needed
to support the next generation of earth science research.

This group is a place where graduate students, post docs, young professors and other young researchers can exchange experiences and ideas, and continue the discussions that started at the Early Career Workshop. Participation is open to all.

Members: 73
Latest Activity: Nov 12, 2013


Workshop Organizers:

  • Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Steve Diggs, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
  • Yolanda Gil, University of Southern California
  • Bob Hazen, Carnegie Institution for Science
  • Danie Kinkade, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Workshop Stats:

  • 71 early career participants; 5 co-organizers; 7 featured speakers

Workshop Goals:

  • Map EarthCube onto Career Trajectories
  • Contribute to EarthCube Vision
  • Inform EarthCube Governance
  • Enable Networking and Professional Development

Documents generated during the Early Career workshop can be found here:

Discussion Forum

White paper - A graduate student's perspective 11 Replies

As graduate students in the field of geosciences, we see the EarthCube initiative as an opportunity to find solutions to difficulties related to the transition from student to researcher. It is our…Continue

Tags: WhitePaper, WhitePaper, white paper, postdoc, graduate student

Started by Sebastien de Larquier. Last reply by Peter Baumann Aug 29, 2013.

Paid Geoscientist Opportunities on National Parks, National Forests, and BLM Lands 1 Reply

I found this job posting and thought it might be of interest to members of this group...GeoCorps America is a program of the Geological Society of America , in partnership with the U.S. Forest…Continue

Tags: Career, Early, Job, GeoCorps

Started by Genevieve Pearthree. Last reply by Genevieve Pearthree May 1, 2013.

EarthCube RCN: Cyberinfrastructure for relieving the burden of metadata in Geosciences and Biology 4 Replies

HelloI am currently working on a response to Amendment I in the latest EarthCube rfp. Below is a bit of text from the proposal summary. Please let me know if this interests you by replying to the…Continue

Started by Anne Thessen. Last reply by Anne Thessen Feb 22, 2013.

Federation for Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP) Student/Post-doc Fellowship Application for 2012-2013 - $2k stipend/travel

Hi All - The Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP) is an open networked community that brings together science, data and…Continue

Started by Erin Robinson Mar 17, 2012.

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Early Career to add comments!

Comment by Anne Thessen on May 6, 2013 at 3:17pm

Hello folks!

My colleagues and I are preparing a Building Blocks proposal and we are still in need of collaborators, particularly from the geodynamics modeling community. Please respond to this comment if you are interested. We have a collaboration space set up under the name "Model Data Compare".


Comment by Barbara Ransom on October 11, 2011 at 5:58pm
I really ilke Karen Remick's vision of what could be and how she (and others) might be doing their kind of science in the future.  What are other people's visions.  Those are really what we need to know in order to even conceptualize what could be, as opposed to what is now and how we imcrementally make it better.
Comment by Karen Remick on October 10, 2011 at 1:43pm

Here is my vision written as a scenario as suggested by Dr Zanaerkia.

Dr. Davis flies above a thunderstorm cloud in New Mexico. The instruments on his plane include a high speed camera, spectroscope, magnetometer and GPS. In Brazil his co-I, Dr. Fernando, flies above another storm with the same equipment. Using a web connection, both researchers are uploading their data in real time to the archive in Fairbanks, AK, and downloading each other’s data so that they can see both on the same screen. In addition, their GPS and magnetometer data are being downloaded by Dr. Rogers in Fairbanks. He is running his magnetic field model using the real time data and guiding the two pilots stay at conjugate field points. The archive’s web programs allow chatting between all the researchers both in text and voice. Dr. Rogers was suggested to Dr. Davis by the archive’s semantic engine as a possible collaborator for this project. Dr. Davis had checked him out looking at the ratings of his publications and his contributions to the discussion boards on the archive’s networking sites.  

With the storm finishing up, Dr. Fernando brings up the archives analytic tool box and does some preliminary analysis on the data. She sees that the frequencies of certain emissions are higher than in the last storm and starts making notes about other differences she observed between the storms (saw more blue jets this time, etc…) to possibly explain the difference. She has made arrangements to have a copy of the data transferred from the Alaskan archive to the one run by her own establishment INPE.   
Dr. Davis, whose last grant proposal had not been funded, had worried about his graduate student whose project it was to be, however his student contacted the archive and asked its semantic engine for some complimentary data sets in geomagnetic fields and it had turned up several options. His student had picked a geological survey with an overlapping geomagnetic survey. Using those and Dr. Roger’s model he was working to see if the mineral content underground could be predicted form the deviations between actual and theoretical values in the magnetic field, a project some researchers at the mine has shown interest in. 
Dr Davis, flying back to base, is thinking that the definition of the word ‘archive’ has changed almost as much as the definition of the word ‘telephone’ when he is interrupted by a notice from the archive. It has done its daily scan for articles that fit his entered parameters and found one that may be of interest for him.  It also informs him that Dr. Wilkins received funding for her thunderstorm prediction project. He’ll have to get in touch with her when he gets back. He is pleased that the flights went well and that the data is both safe (already being backed up on the archive’s drives) and secure (his security settings allow no-one but his work group to have access to the data until his publication comes out).
In this scenario, the archive has/will provided:
• Collaboration through use of the semantic engine finding a selection of appropriate people,
• Real time uploading, storage and downloading of raw data,
• Communication between researchers on the team,
• An analytical tool box to allow preliminary analysis of archive stored data,
• Transfer of data between archives,
• Information about and easy access to public data sets,
• New research questions through use of the semantic engine sorting through the available data sets to provide a selection of complementary sets,
• Monitoring of grants and publications and notification when one that fits the given parameters has been found,
• A variety of levels for data security before archiving, and
• Data archiving when the project is complete.
Other possible services not mentioned in this scenario:
• Listing of publications and allowing archive members to rate  and comment on them,
• Sorting of projects by field, but allowing easy access to other fields of study,
• Restricting access to everything except the archived data to scientific contributors and their assistants (prevents harassment and students seeking people to do their homework for them),
• Discussion forums
Comment by Karen Remick on October 7, 2011 at 7:24pm

I am actually working on a paper regarding this. I did some research into professional networking and found that while ~75% of business people network, only ~15% of scientists do. A paper by Lackes et al (see reference at end) looked into why this is. It turns out that what scientists are interested in is data. No surprise there. Any scientific networking site must have data. My vision for the future is that archives will expand into networking sites that not only store data for posterity but allow an exchange of data and papers, establish connections between researchers, allow for checking of results (Doubt someone's results? Just download the person's data and paper and see if you can reproduce them) give researchers a single place to go to keep up on what is happening in the community (who received grants to do what work) and inspire new research questions by exposing researchers to ideas and data sets that are complimentary to their own. Amazon doesn't sell books by only searching by ISBN number, but that is how we currently handle data sets. If you don't know that the data set exists and who has it, you are out of luck. In my vision, archives would allow:

Data shopping - you can look around to see what other people are doing and how it fits with your research

instant messaging/email/chat to contact other researchers about their data without having to leave the site.

Allow real time up/down loading to facilitate team work- 2 researchers working 1000 miles away could look at each other's data in near real time.

do multilevel searches of metadata involving key words, citations, author/PI names, project names, instruments, space/time constraints, etc...

Pages of user posted links to interesting/relevant websites

the researcher could post characteristics of data that they were looking for and be notified when /if it came in. Archives could use a system similar to inter-library loan to pass on request and check other archives.


Most of this is possible with the tech we have today. We just need the organization, protocols, and some programming. Given the support needed, this could be up and running within a decade.


*Lackes, R, Siepermann, M. Frank, E Social networks as an approach to the enhancement of collaboration among scientists. International Journal of Web Based Communities Vol 5, #4, 2009


Members (73)


Connect with EarthCube!


Discussion Forum

White paper - A graduate student's perspective 11 Replies

As graduate students in the field of geosciences, we see the EarthCube initiative as an opportunity to find solutions to difficulties related to the transition from student to researcher. It is our opinion that too much of a graduate student’s time…Continue

Tags: WhitePaper, WhitePaper, white paper, postdoc, graduate student

Started by Sebastien de Larquier. Last reply by Peter Baumann Aug 29, 2013.

© 2014   Created by Dennis Carey.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations presented in this material are only those of the presenter grantee/researcher, author, or agency employee; and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.