Dear Dave and others,

As I pursue the discussion with great interest, it occurs to me that may 
be we are limiting ourselves more than we should. Answering what the 
most interesting research areas in metamorphic petrology are requires 
defining the boundaries of metamorphic petrology first - and where is 
it? If metamorphism is "transformation in an essentially solid state", 
then any rock that has ever been below, say, 5 Km, is potentially an 
object of interest for a metamorphic petrologist, as is any fluid that 
has ever seen such a rock (OK, would have to have been a long enough 
date for it to count). Consider the following "non-metamorphic" 
situations: (i) using Schreinemaker's analysis to study reactions at the 
D" layer, (ii) working out the seismic anisotropy produced by shear 
alignment of olivines in a plume or other situations in the mantle, and 
(iii) reactions, often with fluids, in parent bodies of 
meteorites.....we have all been hearing about Mars, sulfates and water 
to our fill anyway. So, what is actually not metamorphic petrology?

Big picture issues have been mentioned (e.g. mountain building, crustal 
evolution, climate change and related role of fluids at depth, flux of 
elements across reservoirs), and to address these, increasingly 
sophisticated tools of quantification (free energy minimization - which 
I prefer to "pseudosections", mass transport and kinetics) and analysis 
(imaging, spatially resolved dating etc) that are required have already 
been noted.

I would just like to comment on that Poincare quote. While Poincare did 
write that and much other philosophical stuff, if one actually looks at 
his work, it was grounded in trying to solve very down to earth 
practical problems - albeit with some of the most abstract math at 
times. Ditto Einstein. And this is very nicely documented by Peter 
Galison in "Einstein's clocks, Poincare's Maps" - I can recommend this 
highly for the coming holiday season! As long as we apply the tools of 
metamorphic petrology to actually solve problems and answer big 
questions, I am not sure we would have trouble convincing the fund 
givers. Because people like to see problems solved, and government 
officials (and the press!) understand big pictures. Nor would there be a 
conflict with appreciating the sheer beauty of rocks......most of which 
are metamorphic :),

Cheers,

Sumit



-- 
***************** Sumit Chakraborty
****************************************
 http://www.mineralogie.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
Institut fuer Geologie, Mineralogie und Geophysik;
Ruhr-Universität Bochum; D-44780 Bochum; Germany
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +49-(0)234-322 4395 / 8155
Fax: +49-(0)234-321 4433
*****************************************************************************