- Email: [email protected]
Introduction of Harold Clayton Urey for the V.M. Goldschmidt Medal
Award of the V. M. Goldschmidt and F. W. Clarke Medals of them were not. No doubt the return of Martian samples will inspire a revival of a similar series of ideas-of course flavored by whatever peculiarities may be intrinsic to that planet. It is to be noted that a period of Martian Neptunism has already blossomed and faded. A third replay of the controversies may be cheerfully anticipated with some confidence. But controversy is to be expected. Theories always have been born, advocated, and then replaced by others-and often reborn again with refinements. It is the introduction of refinements which indicate progress. Not only is controversy to be expected, since
569
science seems to work this way, but it is to be applauded. We must take pleasure in seeing the theories that we advocate today be replaced by those of tomorrow. It would be sad and perhaps foolish to think that the last word has ever been said. Surely it is a sign of health and interest in a subject to see controversy and subsequent refinements. I would therefore like to accept the F. W. Clarke Medal with the hope that some potential future Clarke medalist will be interested enough in the ideas that bring me here today to change them tomorrow. Thank you very much.
Introduction of Harold Clayton Urey for the V. M. ~Idsch~idt G. J.
Medal*
WASSERBURG?
This presentation of the V. M. Goldschmidt Medal is to Harold Clayton Urey. The previous recipients of this award were Paul W. Gast and H. E. Suess. The range in age of the recipients is very great and covers a wide range of achievements which are all fundamental to the science of geochemistry. The award to a younger man such as the late Paul W. Gast can be associated with particular accomplishments over his short career. The award to H. E. Suess recognizes a highly imaginative career with many accomplishments, one of which was done jointly with Urey. The present award to Harold C. Urey reflects a distinguished and lengthy career that covers the whole development of modern geochemistry. It is sometimes not clear whether an award is to honor the recipient or the society making the award. In this case it does not matter. It is simply unreasonable to have an award in geochemistry in this era which is not associated in some way with Urey. Harold Urey has received many awards and his contributions have been described many times. In reviewing his work, one is most impressed with the rich and imaginative intellectual content of his studies. These studies are truly synthetic and bring together diverse observations and theoretical considerations necessary to achieve an understanding of natural processes. Yet these are done with sufficient insight and simplicity so as to permit the formulation of specific, well-defined problems. In the past, some ,of Harold Urey’s many ideas have proven incorrect. Urey’s Moon and the real Moon do not exactly coincide. I know that Harold is very upset when one of his hypotheses proves wrong. The upset is not because he is wrong, but because it means he does not understand. In retrospect, the most important contributions which Urey have made are not to the solution of problems, but to the recognition and formulation of significant problems. This is by far the * Contribution No. 2712. ? California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91 I25, U.S.A.
greater art. The questions which he raised and the basic problems which he tried to solve in an article titled ‘The Origin and Development of the Earth and Other Terrestrial Planets’ [Geochirn. Cosmochim. Acta (1951) 1, 209-2771 are vital issues today. The even more general views presented in The Planets (Yale University Press, 1952) have served as a guide to all those who seek to understand their origin and development. The basic methods which he has used and the problems he has posed are still valid, and current research is often in pursuit of the problems posed by Harold Urey, using the same principles that he has outlined. He has been so convincing that many workers today, while pursuing a problem laid out by Urey, consider what they are doing to be terribly modern and innovative. The cosmic abundances of potassium, uranium, and thorium and the thermal evolution of the planets have long concerned Harold Urey. Exactly twenty years ago, Urey wrote a most penetrating paper on this problem [Proc. iVat/ Ad. Sci. (1955) 40, 1271, which laid out the basic problems of planetary heating. He emphasized the necessity of an early heating mechanism to provide the observed variety of (presumed) early planetary differentiates. In particular, he considered the possibility that the nucleosynthesis of some elements might have taken place close to the time of formation of the solar system and of planetesimals so that short-lived radioactivities could provide a heat source. Very recent discoveries are now pointing to the actual existence of such phenomena. If we now jump the many contributions over the past twenty years until today, we fmd that Runcorn and Urey [Sc$nce (1973) 180,636-6381have recently proposed a new theory of lunar magnetism. It may not turn out to be the true answer, but it is certainly the best working hypothesis we have today. Harold Urey’s main concern appears to be whether he was and is really contributing something. From the viewpoint of the rest of the scientific community, this is hardly the question. The standards and the
570
Award of the V. M. Goldschmidt and F. W. Clarke Medals
striving which typify his career are manifestations of and continued search for excellence and understanding-mixed with a disappointment that the truth is not quite in his hands. V. M. Goldschmidt’s works had very significant effects on Urey and his students. All of Goldschmidt’s papers (in Norske Vidensk. Skr.) were avidly read. In particular, his efforts to link geochemical, astrophysical and nuclear data were an important stage leading to the developments which Urey has pioneered. All of us in Urey’s laboratory had to read the seventh Hugo Miiiler lecture given before the Chemical Society by Goldschmidt in 1937. Twenty years later the Hugo Miilier lecture was given by Harold Urey on ‘The Early History of the Solar System as indicated by the Meteorites’. Copies of Goldschmidt’s lecture and
his remarkable
drafts of chapters for his book were made available to us in the form of purple ditto copies in a course taught by Harold Urey and Harrison Brown. These more recent works of Goldschmidt were written during his last years with the kind assistance and hospitality of his British colleagues while a refugee from the Nazi occupation of his homeland. Goldschmidt’s good humor was maintained through his trials and illness, and accounts of his off-color stories are still told. Harold Urey and V. M. Goldschmidt unfortunately never met, but some of us have always wished we could hear Harold Urey chuckle over one of V.M.‘s salty jokes. Ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege to present Harold Clayton Urey to receive the V. M. Goldschmidt Medal of the Geochemical Society.
Acceptance Speech by Dr. Harold C. Urey for the V. M. Goldschmidt Medal read in Dr. Urey’s absence by Dr. Francis P. Sbepard of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093 I wish to thank the Geochemical Society and its committees who are responsible for selecting me to receive the V. M. Goldschmidt Medal. I am surprised to receive this medal, for it seems to me that I have not done very much in the field of geochemistry. I am, however, a great admirer of V. M. Goldschmidt and pleased to be included in the list of honorees. I graduated as a biologist from the University of Montana where I took a freshman course in geology. I must say that I was not fond of geology. I did not like the mixed up rocks that we studied. I was studying chemistry also and preferred the pure compounds that we studied in this subject. However, it may have been that it was the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the professors who taught the subject. Many years later, I became interested in geology through the difference in chemical properties of isotopic compounds which I thought could be used for measuring the ancient temperatures of the Earth. H. A. Lowenstam and I went on trips to pick up the belemnites, one of which we were able to conclude had lived at varying temperatures through the years, and as I love to say, it died in April. This work has been especially continued by Cesare Emiliani in Miami, Florida, who recently seems to have discovered the origin of the flood, biblical flood that is, though he does not mention it, and the flood described by Plato. Various phases of this work on the abundance of isotopes in geological formations on the Moon, in the meteorites and on the Earth have been continued effectively by others of my students. I should especially mention Harmon Craig, Sam Epstein and Jerry Wasserburg. Craig and I started the classification of the meteorites in a paper published some years ago. He is doing some very interesting work on the abundance of deuterium in the Earth’s interior.
At Chicago, Hans Suess and I worked on the abundance of the elements. I have recently looked at this paper, and I am really surprised that we did as well as we did, considering the sketchy material we had to work from at that time. The idea that the odd mass elements gave fairly smooth curves for the abundance was due to Hans Suess who received this medal last year. I was glad to be associated with Stress. I worked very hard on this paper for about 8 months using the data that we had, mostly from the meteorites. I am glad to follow Suess in receiving the V. M. Goldschmidt Medal. Following this, I became interested in the Moon, and this occurred due to reading a book by Ralph Baldwin on the Moon. I hoped that the Moon would be a fundamental object in the origin of the solar system. I think certainly that it is not a fundamental object in the way that I thought it might be. At the present time, I rather favor the view that the Moon escaped from the Earth, though I have no good idea as to how the separation of the Moon from the Earth occurred. But what can one expect? One must always leave something for the young people to solve. It would be most disappointing, I am sure, if we older people solved all the problems of science, which, of course, none of us will ever do. As I said, I am exceedingly flattered by the award of this medal. I may say that, in spite of my dislike for geology in my youth, I find it a very interesting subject, and am a great admirer of the many facts which geologists have brought to light and the way that they have been abie to interpret the history and chemistry of the Earth. Again, ‘I wish to thank the Geochemical Society for this medal.
569
science seems to work this way, but it is to be applauded. We must take pleasure in seeing the theories that we advocate today be replaced by those of tomorrow. It would be sad and perhaps foolish to think that the last word has ever been said. Surely it is a sign of health and interest in a subject to see controversy and subsequent refinements. I would therefore like to accept the F. W. Clarke Medal with the hope that some potential future Clarke medalist will be interested enough in the ideas that bring me here today to change them tomorrow. Thank you very much.
Introduction of Harold Clayton Urey for the V. M. ~Idsch~idt G. J.
Medal*
WASSERBURG?
This presentation of the V. M. Goldschmidt Medal is to Harold Clayton Urey. The previous recipients of this award were Paul W. Gast and H. E. Suess. The range in age of the recipients is very great and covers a wide range of achievements which are all fundamental to the science of geochemistry. The award to a younger man such as the late Paul W. Gast can be associated with particular accomplishments over his short career. The award to H. E. Suess recognizes a highly imaginative career with many accomplishments, one of which was done jointly with Urey. The present award to Harold C. Urey reflects a distinguished and lengthy career that covers the whole development of modern geochemistry. It is sometimes not clear whether an award is to honor the recipient or the society making the award. In this case it does not matter. It is simply unreasonable to have an award in geochemistry in this era which is not associated in some way with Urey. Harold Urey has received many awards and his contributions have been described many times. In reviewing his work, one is most impressed with the rich and imaginative intellectual content of his studies. These studies are truly synthetic and bring together diverse observations and theoretical considerations necessary to achieve an understanding of natural processes. Yet these are done with sufficient insight and simplicity so as to permit the formulation of specific, well-defined problems. In the past, some ,of Harold Urey’s many ideas have proven incorrect. Urey’s Moon and the real Moon do not exactly coincide. I know that Harold is very upset when one of his hypotheses proves wrong. The upset is not because he is wrong, but because it means he does not understand. In retrospect, the most important contributions which Urey have made are not to the solution of problems, but to the recognition and formulation of significant problems. This is by far the * Contribution No. 2712. ? California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91 I25, U.S.A.
greater art. The questions which he raised and the basic problems which he tried to solve in an article titled ‘The Origin and Development of the Earth and Other Terrestrial Planets’ [Geochirn. Cosmochim. Acta (1951) 1, 209-2771 are vital issues today. The even more general views presented in The Planets (Yale University Press, 1952) have served as a guide to all those who seek to understand their origin and development. The basic methods which he has used and the problems he has posed are still valid, and current research is often in pursuit of the problems posed by Harold Urey, using the same principles that he has outlined. He has been so convincing that many workers today, while pursuing a problem laid out by Urey, consider what they are doing to be terribly modern and innovative. The cosmic abundances of potassium, uranium, and thorium and the thermal evolution of the planets have long concerned Harold Urey. Exactly twenty years ago, Urey wrote a most penetrating paper on this problem [Proc. iVat/ Ad. Sci. (1955) 40, 1271, which laid out the basic problems of planetary heating. He emphasized the necessity of an early heating mechanism to provide the observed variety of (presumed) early planetary differentiates. In particular, he considered the possibility that the nucleosynthesis of some elements might have taken place close to the time of formation of the solar system and of planetesimals so that short-lived radioactivities could provide a heat source. Very recent discoveries are now pointing to the actual existence of such phenomena. If we now jump the many contributions over the past twenty years until today, we fmd that Runcorn and Urey [Sc$nce (1973) 180,636-6381have recently proposed a new theory of lunar magnetism. It may not turn out to be the true answer, but it is certainly the best working hypothesis we have today. Harold Urey’s main concern appears to be whether he was and is really contributing something. From the viewpoint of the rest of the scientific community, this is hardly the question. The standards and the
570
Award of the V. M. Goldschmidt and F. W. Clarke Medals
striving which typify his career are manifestations of and continued search for excellence and understanding-mixed with a disappointment that the truth is not quite in his hands. V. M. Goldschmidt’s works had very significant effects on Urey and his students. All of Goldschmidt’s papers (in Norske Vidensk. Skr.) were avidly read. In particular, his efforts to link geochemical, astrophysical and nuclear data were an important stage leading to the developments which Urey has pioneered. All of us in Urey’s laboratory had to read the seventh Hugo Miiiler lecture given before the Chemical Society by Goldschmidt in 1937. Twenty years later the Hugo Miilier lecture was given by Harold Urey on ‘The Early History of the Solar System as indicated by the Meteorites’. Copies of Goldschmidt’s lecture and
his remarkable
drafts of chapters for his book were made available to us in the form of purple ditto copies in a course taught by Harold Urey and Harrison Brown. These more recent works of Goldschmidt were written during his last years with the kind assistance and hospitality of his British colleagues while a refugee from the Nazi occupation of his homeland. Goldschmidt’s good humor was maintained through his trials and illness, and accounts of his off-color stories are still told. Harold Urey and V. M. Goldschmidt unfortunately never met, but some of us have always wished we could hear Harold Urey chuckle over one of V.M.‘s salty jokes. Ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege to present Harold Clayton Urey to receive the V. M. Goldschmidt Medal of the Geochemical Society.
Acceptance Speech by Dr. Harold C. Urey for the V. M. Goldschmidt Medal read in Dr. Urey’s absence by Dr. Francis P. Sbepard of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093 I wish to thank the Geochemical Society and its committees who are responsible for selecting me to receive the V. M. Goldschmidt Medal. I am surprised to receive this medal, for it seems to me that I have not done very much in the field of geochemistry. I am, however, a great admirer of V. M. Goldschmidt and pleased to be included in the list of honorees. I graduated as a biologist from the University of Montana where I took a freshman course in geology. I must say that I was not fond of geology. I did not like the mixed up rocks that we studied. I was studying chemistry also and preferred the pure compounds that we studied in this subject. However, it may have been that it was the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the professors who taught the subject. Many years later, I became interested in geology through the difference in chemical properties of isotopic compounds which I thought could be used for measuring the ancient temperatures of the Earth. H. A. Lowenstam and I went on trips to pick up the belemnites, one of which we were able to conclude had lived at varying temperatures through the years, and as I love to say, it died in April. This work has been especially continued by Cesare Emiliani in Miami, Florida, who recently seems to have discovered the origin of the flood, biblical flood that is, though he does not mention it, and the flood described by Plato. Various phases of this work on the abundance of isotopes in geological formations on the Moon, in the meteorites and on the Earth have been continued effectively by others of my students. I should especially mention Harmon Craig, Sam Epstein and Jerry Wasserburg. Craig and I started the classification of the meteorites in a paper published some years ago. He is doing some very interesting work on the abundance of deuterium in the Earth’s interior.
At Chicago, Hans Suess and I worked on the abundance of the elements. I have recently looked at this paper, and I am really surprised that we did as well as we did, considering the sketchy material we had to work from at that time. The idea that the odd mass elements gave fairly smooth curves for the abundance was due to Hans Suess who received this medal last year. I was glad to be associated with Stress. I worked very hard on this paper for about 8 months using the data that we had, mostly from the meteorites. I am glad to follow Suess in receiving the V. M. Goldschmidt Medal. Following this, I became interested in the Moon, and this occurred due to reading a book by Ralph Baldwin on the Moon. I hoped that the Moon would be a fundamental object in the origin of the solar system. I think certainly that it is not a fundamental object in the way that I thought it might be. At the present time, I rather favor the view that the Moon escaped from the Earth, though I have no good idea as to how the separation of the Moon from the Earth occurred. But what can one expect? One must always leave something for the young people to solve. It would be most disappointing, I am sure, if we older people solved all the problems of science, which, of course, none of us will ever do. As I said, I am exceedingly flattered by the award of this medal. I may say that, in spite of my dislike for geology in my youth, I find it a very interesting subject, and am a great admirer of the many facts which geologists have brought to light and the way that they have been abie to interpret the history and chemistry of the Earth. Again, ‘I wish to thank the Geochemical Society for this medal.