YOU STARTED OVER 170 YEARS AGO, HAVEN'T YOU FINISHED YET? IS THERE A ROLE FOR A GEOLOGICAL SURVEY IN THE 21ST CENTURY?

Let me give my answer to the question: yes, but only if we change dramatically. Seen by the majority who's taxes pay our salaries, and to whom geology and geological maps are a (colourful) mystery, the first question is absolutely fair – you have had more than a century, what more is there possibly left that we need to know (a very pointed question for the small countries of Europe!). The fact is that there is a limit to how long we geological surveys can make a credible case for carrying on the sort of 2D geological mapping and map production (paper or digital) which belongs more to the 19th century than today.

These bold/arrogant/heretical/flawed statements (choose you own adjective), deserve explanation; let me do that with some more questions. Why, in an age when the hardware, software, GPS and digital data exist, are the majority of geological surveys still doing field mapping on paper? And if most field geologists have a 3 dimensional model in their head when they are doing their mapping, isn't that invaluable knowledge largely lost when they commit it to 2D maps and sections? Why should this be when there are a whole range of 3D modelling systems available?

We constantly tell government and reviewers that geological surveys are unique centres of multidisciplinary geoscience – can we put our hands on our hearts and say we really operate that way? We know that geology has no respect for political boundaries and that the environmental problems we face need an international approach, so why do we continue to operate in our own discipline and national silos, with little attention paid to the digital and taxonomic standards that would allow sharing of knowledge within and beyond the geological domain?

We are continually asserting how relevant geology is to society and government and yet we know that a very small proportion of the population can interpret a geological map or model (estimated at a lot less than 0.5%) – do we really give enough attention and resource to communicating this relevant science to the public in a way that is meaningful and useful to them?

If geological surveys want to survive (and don't get me wrong I think they should and have a vested interest in them doing so) then they have to tackle these questions and tackle them quickly and I would suggest collectively – there is a limit to how many times you can say a map, which few understand, needs money spent on its revision.