I am in almost complete agreement with John Lawton's discourse on “Earth system science” (Editorial, 15 Jun., p. [1965][1]). However, I was taken aback by the obvious lack of reference to geology as a constituent. By definition alone, geology should have been featured prominently in the discussion. And then I realized that the “Earth system science” described by Lawton is “geology.” We don't need a new name because this is not a new discipline. The points made are still valid—we need to broaden the perspective and redesign our institutions to more fully use this new definition and allow the old science of geology to flourish. # {#article-title-2} “There are, as far as i am aware, no undergraduate degree courses in [Earth system science],” says John Lawton in his Editorial. I am, in fact, a graduate of just such a program! Stanford University established its Earth Systems Program ( ) when I was a sophomore, allowing me to graduate in 1994 with a B.S. in Earth systems. When I was in the program, Earth systems students took classes in biology, geology, and economics, in addition to classes in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. The program offered several “tracks,” or concentrations within the major program. A number of other colleges including Southern Utah University, Cornell, California State University Monterey Bay, and Seoul National University ([1][2]) have established similar interdisciplinary Earth science programs. Having such a breadth of exposure has served me well in several jobs and now in graduate school. I agree with Lawton's call for further institutional support for an integrated systems approach to Earth science, in the name of planetary health. 1. [↵][3]Web sites for the programs mentioned are as follows: Southern Utah State University, ; Cornell, ; California State University Monterey Bay, ; and Seoul National University, . [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.292.5524.1965 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text
Read full abstract