this is a limited-diversity fauna for the Carboniferous of any part of the world, and requires explanation hinging upon just that point in any assessment.

Low diversity can result from stress of one kind or another: temperature, salinity and depth may all have such a restricting effect. In this case, the mound carbonates are linked with black shales, a pattern of sulphide mineralization that goes a long way towards pointing to contemporaneous sulphide muds, and a water-chemistry that may have been inhospitable to normal, diverse Carboniferous benthos. The plausi- bility of this as an answer must be increased when we recall those novel discoveries of strange bivalves, crustacea, fish and annelids, some of larger than average size for their kind, discovered in close association with the mineralizing ‘black smokers’ of the Pacific rises. While these were deep-water developments, and for that reason remained undiscovered until submersibles scanned those depths, there seems no reason why such vent-derived gases should not have produced spongy precipitates of sulphides (lead and zinc) and intergrowths of barium carbonate and sulphate at low temperatures and shallow depths. If the Carboniferous waters were methane-rich, as is supposed, then the role and presence of the microbial-bacterial coatings become more meaningful. The origins for the tubes in the absence of a fossilized constructor could leave some questions unsolved, but the peculiar vestimentiform worms that figure in the contemporaneous ‘black smoker’ assemblages appeal strongly to the imagin- ation, looking to the present to give a key to this past. Only the intense and striking colours of the living worms and bivalves seem beyond fact (at present).

If, as i t seems, we have here in Newfoundland, the scene of ocean-margin mineralizing vents, streaming sulphides into the waters of Carboniferous shelf seas, I leave it to others to interpret the plate-tectonic significance of such developments. For myself, I am content to see neat parallelisms between the present and the past when i t involves low-diversity fauna and interbedded mineral deposits with a strong hint of low

temperatures for formation contemporaneously with sedimentation, not to mention model lead ages for the Carboniferous locally of 340 million years.

Yet another neat and supporting fact for what has been said comes from conodonts recovered from the Newfoundland carbonate. Conodonts, whatever the animal that bore these tooth-like objects, have been shown to change colour when the rocks in which they occur suffer any form of metamorphism that raises temperatures for any length of time. Once changed, they remain stable in that changed colour as an index of temperature, which can be measured from a range chart. For the Newfoundland carbonates, the conodont colour allowed the authors to state that ‘the host rocks were never at a temperature above 90°C’.

I t all seems very neat and tidy, and will probably now be a model that we shall see applied to the Mississippi Valley-type stratiform sulphide deposits in different parts of the world. ‘Vents’ may help explain crystalline zinc sulphide within the chambers of Mesozoic ammonites or within the shell cavities of brachiopods without resort to black magic or processes that strain belief. Knowing of vents and ‘black smokers’ is an invitation to use that knowledge and make i t part of the order of things. As Hutton himself said (Theory of the Earth, I, p. 280, 1798), ‘this order alone is what we have to reason upon; and to reason without data is nothing but delusion’.

Fig. 2. An early Carboni- ferous chemosynthetic vent community, Lead Cove/ Boswarlos area, Newfoundland. The lithological symbols are the same as in Fig. 1, with the addition of coarse conglomerates (on right, above Ordovician carbonate). (Reprinted by permission from Nature, v. 344, p. 147, 1990. Copyright 0 1990 Macmillan Magazines Ltd.)

Correspondence The future of the ‘Geological Museum’ The following letter w a s written for, and has already been published in, the Geologists’ Association Circular; but because it represents an important conmriburion to issues rehearsed in these columns, the editor of the Circular and the author have kindly agreed to its re-publication here.

Sirs: I have been prevailed upon to contribute to the discussion on the fate of the Geological Museum in your pages. My silence to date has been prompted by the wish not to play the faintly ridiculous role of the ex-curator who disagrees with whatever his successors are doing, and by the hope that in the managerial rearrangements that followed my retirement some logic and order would eventually become apparent and the Geological Museum would swiftly embark on useful exhibition, publication and education programmes. As we all know, nothing of the sort has

come about; the Geological Museum has been abolished as an institution and its functions crippled. What exactly has happened and why? Before going into this we should look first a t recent history. When the Geological Museum was transferred to the British Museum (Natural History) in 1985, there were many Cassandras foretelling calamity. They were quickly confounded. The new authorities were welcoming and hugely helpful. A fine new shop was built, new publications embarked upon (including the out- standing Gemstones), and secure and generous funding provided with considerable autonomy and flexibility. With successful sponsorship from the oil industry, a full exhibition programme was undertaken and everything seemed fine. But the Cassandras were proved right, and a crushing blow fell in the winter of 1988-89.

G E O L O G Y TODAY May-June 1990187

The Geological Museum staff recognized that it was inevitable and desirable that a much closer integration of activities with the Natural History Museum’s Department of Public Services should be brought about on my retirement. Despite this recognition, and without consultation, the Natural History Museum set up a Review Group of outside designers and educationalists to produce a report. It did not include geologists. In the interviews, I learned that the post of Curator would be abolished. My consternation was somewhat allayed by the Director’s suggestion that the Geological Museum might come under dual ‘matrix’ management, the scientific direction being provided by the Keeper of Palaeontology and the management of exhibition design and production by the Head of Public Services, for both of whom I had the greatest respect - but I was still apprehensive. In the final outcome, the Keeper of Palaeontology has been relegated to the role of Scientific Adviser, and I doubt if the Geological Museum’s affairs consume more than 1% of his time. But this wouldn’t have mattered if a good management merger had nonethe- less resulted from the Review Group’s report. Instead, a calamitous course of destructive change was instituted, with dire and incalculable consequences.

The Geological Museum’s extremely busy education programme had been directed primarily at schools but also included, among other things, adult educational courses, special lecture series, public events and field excursions publicized in advance. Schools work was tailormade to schools’ stated requirements and included GCSE preparation as well as subject updating for teachers. In January 1989 this was stopped dead in mid-programme and the education staff transferred without job descriptions to the Visitor Resources Section of the Department of Public Services. Here it is necessary to explain that the Natural History Museum could never hope to provide an individually tailored schools service in biology; the demand would overwhelm them. In geology, the demand is just containable. Instead, Visitor Resources concentrates on producing work- sheets, the instruction of teachers in the use of exhi- bitions and the supervision of the new Discovery Centre for children. The Geological Museum’s Education Officer was told to work up a distance- learning project for 5- to 7-year-olds, and eventually the rest of the staff were given the job of writing worksheets and teacher notes in Visitor Resources. Because there is no longer a service for schools, school visits to the Geological Museum have fallen calamitously (from 7892 children in November 1988 to a recorded 83 in November 1989, for example). As a result of protests from members of the public, field excursions have been reinstated, but the school events programme is non-existent and there are no teacher- training programmes despite heavy demand. The former Education Officer has now been made ‘Head of Adult Education’, but he has neither staff nor money and has only the former Demonstration Room at his disposal; the magnificent Flett Theatre is no longer in use for geological education purposes. The education staff have been evicted from their purpose- built accommodation and the famous GM slide collection saved only by the intervention of the ‘Head of Adult Education’. What is the rationale behind these changes? The demands of the National Curricu- lum? The old GM team would have coped easily. ‘Not

invented here’ and uniformity whatever the cost are more likely, but one also cannot help discerning an attitude of contempt for the Geological Museum’s education and exhibition policies engendered within the Department of Public Service.

On the exhibition side, things are not quite so awful but give no cause for optimism either. The Geological Museum staff drew up a new museum-wide outline plan for the development of new exhibitions in 1989. It isn’t the same as the one drawn up in my time, which included new regional geology displays concentrating on scenery and its geological develop- ment, but it is exciting nonetheless. However, whereas we had six geologists, including myself, researching and scripting exhibitions, working with designers, collecting rocks and supervising models and arnvork in the Geological Museum, the Depart- ment of Public Services employs only two of the former GM exhibition team on research and scripting, and they (along with two biologists) were expected to work on all life-science exhibitions too! The rest have been transferred to other work unconnected with exhibitions. Worse still, instead of the Geological Museum’s displays receiving the benefits of the undoubted expertise in the Production and Technical Services sections of the Department of Public Services, as we had hoped, the design of geological exhibitions is now farmed out entirely to private design companies. This worked reasonably well when a staff of six could adequately supervise all aspects of exhibition design and construction, but is now proving next to impossible with only two. I doubt whether the Geological Museum (which doesn’t exist - see below) will ever again produce a serious multi- level exhibition. Quite clearly its world-famous booklet series has come to an end; over 1250000 were sold but, apart from new editions and reprints, we shall see no new titles in that series.

There is a colossal performance gap between what is promised by the Natural History Museum for the Geological Museum (‘a range of public events, films, lectures and demonstrations is also important to a lively museum’, to quote the new Plan) and what has actually been done and is likely to be done. There has also been a conscious policy of reducing the profile of geology, contrary to the transfer terms agreed with the Natural Environment Research Council but consistent with internal marketing advice that geology has a poor image. This is confirmed by the dearth of geological specimens in the new Discovery Centre. The notice boards with the title ‘Geological Museum’ have been removed in Exhibition Road, and geological themes replaced by photographs of poppies, butterfly wings and eggs, a fish and a single mineral specimen. The new designation of the Geological Museum is the ugly and misleading ‘Earth Galleries’, but even that doesn’t appear on the front of the Museum nor amongst other directions in the foyer of the Natural History Museum. Small wonder then that ‘Geological Museum’ attendances fell to around 200000 in 1989 - from a high of nearly 600000 before transfer in 1985; in contrast, Natural History Museum attendances are down by only 30%.

Are the Trustees of the Natural History Museum aware of what is going on? Probably not. I s the Direcror aware? Possibly, but is not minded to intervene. And the Geological Museum Advisory Punel? Without direct knowledge, it has little choice but to accept assurances

8 8 I G E O L O G Y T O D A Y M a y -June I990

that all is well. Could anyrhing have been done? Things were done - complaints reached ministerial level but, once again, a well-practised soothing operation went into action. I s rhere any hope? A qualified ‘yes’: what is needed is to retain the best of the old order and add some of the new. For example, return to a proper schools and adult-education service and produce the distance-learning materials for Visitor Resources; if necessary, commission the latter. Boost the exhibition development team to a realistic level. Improve exhibition maintenance and Earth-science signposting in the ‘Earth Galleries’ - and change that name! Above all, let us see a new, positive attitude to geology within the Department of Public Services and in Marketing. Otherwise the subject is heading for extinction.

FRED DUNNING 31 Parish Ghyll Lane

Ilkley West Yorkshire LS29 9QP

Popularizing Antarctica Sirs: In their ‘Editors’ note’ following a letter from D. I . M. Macdonald in Geoloa Today (v. 5, p. 199, 1989) the editors continue to take to task the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) over its ‘public image’. They ask several specific questions to which I would respond as follows.

Q. When did the BAS last offer an article on some aspect of its work to one of these papers (e.g. The Guardian, The Times, The Independenr, The Daily Telegraph, e tc . ) ?

A. The BAS frequently briefs journalists on its work, and articles are carried in these papers. The last time a substantial article was contributed from outside the newspaper’s own staff was in The Times on 13 September 1989 in which Dr R. M. Laws (former Director of BAS) examined science and international politics in Antarctica. Other articles giving significant coverage to BAS work (i.e. %- page spreads) appeared as follows: The Indepen- dent, May 1987, 2 March 1988; The Daily Telegraph, 27 September 1987; The Guardian, 29 February 1989; The Financial Times, 14 June 1989.

Q. When did the BAS last hold a briefing conference for science journalists?

A. A briefing meeting was held on 13 June 1989 when the long-term strategy document Anrarcrica 2000 was launched.

Q. When did the BAS last put up a programme proposal to one of the TV or radio companies?

A. The BAS has frequent and active dialogue with TV, radio and film companies. It not only discusses plans with them for programmes on Antarctica and the work of the BAS and advises in general, but assists by taking programme producers, writers and TVlradiolfilm crews to Antarctica on its ships and aircraft. In 1989 the ITV ‘Survival’ programme ‘Antarctica - The Last

Frontier’ was supported substantially by the BAS over two seasons in Antarctica. In March 1989 Radio 4 featured four half-hour programmes on Antarctica (‘South of Sixty’) about the work of the BAS and described the journey by ship to BAS bases and BAS work in Antarctica through inter- views with staff. In 1990 the BAS is supporting at least one film company making a programme, in collaboration, on Antarctica. Incidentally, BAS geology work, including the discovery of dinosaur remains, was featured on ‘Blue Peter’ - a potent vehicle for influencing young minds on natural history topics. Furthermore, ITV will in the Spring feature a half-hour drama-documentary on the BAS discovery of the ozone hole. Negotiations are presently under way on a film specifically on Antarctic geology.

Q. When did BAS scientists last write a popular book on the excitement of Antarctic science?

A. September 1989: Anrarcrica - The Lasr Fronrier (Boxtree Press) by Richards Laws, a richly illustrated book intended to achieve the above. January 1987: Antarcfic Science (Cambridge) edited by David Walton, a readable popularization of science in Antarctica.

Q. When did the BAS even produce a brochure on its work for distribution to interested non-scientists?

A. BAS distributes Anrarcrica - A Conlinen1 for Science, a 32-page glossy booklet to all interested parties. Some 12000 copies have been distributed to date. It regularly produces other brochures and broadsheets including a recent (1989) 12-page booklet, The Anlarctic Ozone Hole.

I hope the above provides a fair indication that the BAS takes its role in the popular promulgation of its science and activities seriously. Nor are we com- placent; we can always do better and improve our public image, and are pleased to receive comments from others.

No doubt the editors will have the last word on this matter.

D. J . DREWRY Director, British Antarctic Survey

High Cross Madingly Road

Cambridge CB3 OET

Fig. 1. Antarctica beneath the ice: Antarctica would no longer be a single continent if all the ice were to melt. From the brochure Anlarclica - A Continent for Science, referred to by D. J. Drewry in his letter. (Redrawn from coloured version, and reproduced by kind permission of the British Antarctic Survey.)

G E O L O G Y T O D A Y May-June 1990189