Una Opinión sobre el papel de los paleontólogos

Desde nuestra Web vamos colgando constantemente ofertas de trabajo para paleontólogos que muestra claramente como nuestro papel en la sociedad va en progreso, a pesar que en algunos foros hay un claro pesimismo sobre que Paleontología es una ciencia condenada a la marginalidad. Para ilustrar esto: os adjuntamos un par de opiniones publicadas en PaleoNet de dos paleontólogos: Peter Ward y David Campbell. Solo decir que Ward defiende que se debe progresar en la paleontología, tener imaginación y propuestas innovadoras, hacer de las enseñanzas y la investigación en paleontología un campo atractivo en el que se desarrollen nuevas líneas de trabajo que tengan un interés especial para los estudiantes como es el caso de la docencia sobre la evolución para los militares de la NASA, que imparten en la Universidad de Washington.

DePeter Ward:
I was in the Geology department at the University of Washington for 20 years with no additional Paleo hires. I moved two thirds of myself (ouch!) to our Biology Department three years ago and we have made three new hires in two years in that Department since then- two
Vert paleontologists and one paleobotanist, while our Geology Department turned my old position into another Geobiologist, to add to the new position of Geobiology/Astrobiology (Roger Buick) that came with our addition to the NASA Astrobiology Institute in 2000.
We have thus added what essentially are 5 new paleontologists through some creative labeling. Our Biology Department has over 2,000 majors, and all need to learn Evolution. Thus our Deans are happy to hire paleontologists because we can teach that, and Anatomy. Add to that number Liz Nesbitt in our Museum/Geology Department and we now
have seven active paleontologists, mainly by working with new positions needed for the huge number crunch in Biology Departments.

David Campbell wrote: I saw a recent study that found that biology tenured positions have
remained fairly constant while the number of students has gone up. Does anyone know if this is the case in geology as well? Such a situation creates even greater problems than it might seem, because the constant number of tenure-track positions includes an increasing number of novel subfields. Paleontology and systematics tend to be regarded as topics that can be cut in order to add someone who works in the latest hot field.

Are there ways to: a) better convey that paleo is a hot topic worth hiring in? b) encourage adding positions to address new fields, rather than cutting important existing topics?
c) create jobs in paleo and systematics?