Roger F. Malina and Aperio LLM
Aug 22 225
Abstract
This article builds on Robert Massey and Sean McWhinnie’s “Exploring, evolving…” (A&G, June 2025) by examining how astronomy and geophysics (A&G) are transforming in response to social, political, and technological disruptions. Using the framework of deep emergence, it considers how individual choices—whether to travel, collaborate, or adopt new tools—aggregate into macro-level patterns that reshape the research ecosystem.
External shocks serve as focal points: the COVID-19 pandemic, and US government science policy which accelerated the adoption of remote observing, hybrid meetings, and distributed working; and Brexit in the UK, which introduced long-term uncertainty in funding and mobility for UK researchers. All illustrate science’s vulnerability to political conditions, while highlighting its capacity for innovation.
Structural changes are equally significant. Computational methods, automation, and remote operations have become central to A&G practice, broadening participation but also generating new inequities in access to resources and training. Cultural shifts—especially the migration of teaching, mentoring, and collaboration into hybrid spaces—have expanded access for some researchers while eroding informal encounters vital to community cohesion. We have been analysing the formation of cibervillages, etribes and eShires which are social aspects of the emergence of hybrid research spaces.
From a systems perspective, A&G now stands at a crossroads between competing regimes: one of inclusive hybrid participation, one of regression to prestige-driven travel, and one of global fragmentation shaped by political frictions. Policy choices and institutional practices will determine which future prevails.
The analysis extends beyond the UK to compare international contexts. Europe retains stability through Horizon Europe and continental integration; North America balances uneven hybrid adoption with powerful federal funding; East Asia advances rapidly under state-driven investment, though inclusivity lags; and the Global South sees hybridisation expand opportunities while structural inequities persist.
Case studies from the University of Texas at Dallas (UT Dallas) illustrate how these dynamics manifest locally, with implications for U.S. industry partners such as Texas Instruments and regional defense and energy sectors. The U.S. political environment—marked by funding cuts, reoriented priorities, and cultural retrenchment—introduces new risks but also drives reconfiguration of partnerships.
Overall, A&G emerges as a case study in how science adapts under pressure. Its trajectory will depend as much on policy and collective norms as on technology or discovery, offering lessons for how research communities worldwide can evolve toward more resilient and inclusive futures.
Introduction
In their June 2025 article “Exploring, evolving…”, Massey and McWhinnie examined how A&G is adapting to social, political, and technological change. Their analysis highlighted disruption alongside resilience. Here we extend their reflections by applying a systems-based perspective informed by research into deep emergence, exploring how practices have stabilised, what new challenges have emerged, and how global comparisons reshape the picture. We conclude with ideas of on how our proposed Institute for Emergence Research might address some of these emerging problems.
External Shocks and Research Resilience
The COVID-19 pandemic forced rapid experimentation with remote observing, virtual conferences, and distributed work. What began as crisis response has now stabilised into enduring hybrid models. Brexit, in contrast, created structural uncertainty around mobility, funding, and collaboration for UK scientists, especially those dependent on EU programmes. In the US the dramatic decrease in government funding is in the foreground.
Together these shocks underscore the dual nature of disruption: it exposes vulnerabilities but also stimulates innovation. A&G communities have used these shocks to reassess practices and strengthen collaborative resilience.
Structural Evolution: Tools and Workflows
Remote operations and computational methods have shifted from peripheral support to central pillars of practice. Observations that once demanded on-site presence are increasingly automated or remotely accessible. This broadens participation for those unable to travel but introduces new inequities where computing power, training, or bandwidth are scarce.
Cultural Shifts in Research Practice
The hybridisation of mentoring, teaching, and collaboration has expanded access for researchers with caring responsibilities, disabilities, or limited travel resources. Yet it has also reduced informal encounters that sustain community bonds. The challenge is to design hybrid models that balance inclusivity with cohesion.
A Systems View: Deep Emergence
From a systems perspective, A&G can be seen as a complex adaptive system in which micro-level decisions aggregate into macro-level outcomes: Micro-level choices: whether to travel, use remote tools, or collaborate across borders. Macro-level outcomes: norms of hybrid conferencing, international collaboration, inclusivity. Feedback loops: once journals, funders, and societies institutionalise parity for hybrid participation, individual decisions are guided by these norms, stabilising the system.
This view highlights hybridisation not as temporary adaptation but as a driver of enduring cultural change.
Emerging Regimes and Possible Futures
The community faces competing trajectories: Hybrid-inclusive regime: parity between remote and in-person participation, deepened global collaboration, expanded inclusion. Legacy regime: prestige re-centralises around physical presence, emissions rebound, hybrid downgraded. Fragmented regime: political or economic frictions increase network modularity, reducing spillovers across regions.
Policy, institutional choices, and collective norms will determine which regime consolidates.
Case Study: UT Dallas and the U.S. Political Context
Scientific Strengths
UT Dallas has developed distinctive profiles in: Space plasma and ionospheric research, via the William B. Hanson Center for Space Sciences. Cosmology and astrophysics, through survey participation (LSST, DESI) and computational modeling. Seismic imaging and climate-related geophysics, with applications in Greenland ice-sheet monitoring and tectonic studies. Interdisciplinary education, integrating A&G research into curricula such as Sustainable Earth Systems.
Political Pressures
Recent U.S. policy proposals—marked by steep cuts to NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, NSF geosciences, and NOAA—threaten continuity of small- and mid-scale missions essential to UT Dallas research. A reorientation toward crewed exploration and defense priorities risks sidelining curiosity-driven science. Simultaneously, rollbacks of DEI programmes and uncertainty around training support challenge student pipelines.
Systems View
UT Dallas faces risks of fragmentation and slowing progress if funding cuts persist. Yet its low-cost, high-impact contributions (e.g. CubeSats), strong computational base, and interdisciplinary focus may provide resilience through private-sector partnerships and international collaborations.
Local Industry Linkages: North Texas
Emerging trends in A&G research intersect strongly with regional industry: Semiconductors (Texas Instruments): demand for space-rated, radiation-hardened chips aligns with A&G instrumentation needs. Defense contractors (Raytheon, Lockheed, L3Harris): ionospheric research supports resilient communications and radar systems. Energy companies (ExxonMobil, Pioneer): seismic and geophysical methods inform both exploration and climate-risk monitoring. Telecommunications (AT&T, Nokia): space weather forecasting supports satellite and GPS resilience. AI and semiconductors: machine learning in geophysics drives demand for domain-specific hardware accelerators.
Policy volatility—budget cuts, DEI retrenchment, and shifting global collaborations—creates uncertainty but also accelerates university–industry partnerships as firms seek resilience.
Global Comparisons UK: post-Brexit fragmentation but proactive hybridisation and inclusivity measures. Europe: stability through Horizon Europe and integrated facilities. North America: strong funding base but uneven hybrid adoption; U.S. cuts risk leadership. East Asia: rapid state-led growth, prestige-driven, inclusivity secondary. Global South: hybridisation expands access, but structural inequities persist.
The global picture is thus one of divergent trajectories within a shared trend of hybridisation and adaptation.
Conclusion
A&G exemplifies science under transformation: shaped by shocks, driven by technology, and constrained by politics. The field’s future will hinge not only on discovery but on how research communities organise, include, and collaborate.
UT Dallas and North Texas illustrate both vulnerability and resilience, highlighting how universities and industries co-adapt under shifting political conditions. Globally, the challenge is to avoid regression or fragmentation and to consolidate a hybrid-inclusive regime that sustains equity, connectivity, and scientific progress.
SO WHAT
A proposed Institute for Emergence Studies could position itself at the intersection of science, technology, and society, addressing precisely the kinds of transformations that astronomy and geophysics are undergoing today. The guiding rationale would be that disciplines such as A&G offer unusually clear case studies of how local shocks and global forces cascade through research ecosystems, altering practices, norms, and institutions in ways that cannot be understood by looking at isolated components. The Institute would therefore treat emergence not as a purely abstract philosophical theme, but as a practical framework for navigating crises, designing resilient systems, and guiding scientific cultures toward more sustainable futures.
One natural focus would be on the dynamics of hybridisation. The rapid adoption of remote observing, distributed collaboration, and digital mentoring has shown how micro-level adaptations by individuals—choosing to log in remotely, reconfiguring lab workflows, experimenting with new tools—can aggregate into new macro-level regimes of practice. An Institute for Emergence Studies could formalise the analysis of such processes, developing models and methods for understanding how hybrid infrastructures stabilize, how inclusivity and equity are either enhanced or eroded, and how feedback loops entrench particular regimes.
At the same time, the Institute would need to address the political environment in which science unfolds. The upheavals seen in the UK around Brexit and in the U.S. around budget cuts and cultural retrenchment are not simply background noise—they are structural drivers of emergent trajectories in research. By bringing political scientists, sociologists, and policy analysts into dialogue with natural scientists, the Institute could explore how governance, funding structures, and international alignments condition the pathways of scientific evolution. This would mean treating “emergence” not only as a scientific phenomenon but also as a socio-political process.
The local context at UT Dallas suggests a further dimension: the relationship between universities and industry. In North Texas, the interplay between A&G research and companies such as Texas Instruments, Lockheed Martin, and AT&T illustrates how scientific innovation feeds into, and is constrained by, commercial and defense priorities. An Institute for Emergence Studies could take this entanglement seriously, examining how emergent trends in science are both shaped by and reshaping industrial ecosystems. Such an approach would prepare students and researchers to think systemically about the circulation of knowledge, capital, and technology across institutional boundaries.
Finally, the Institute could position itself as an incubator for methods of resilience. Emergence theory suggests that systems thrive when they can adapt flexibly to shocks without collapsing into fragmentation or reverting to brittle hierarchies. A dedicated programme on resilience could therefore focus on hybrid mentoring models, equitable access to computational resources, cross-border collaboration despite political headwinds, and strategies for integrating climate-conscious practices into scientific infrastructures.
In short, the Institute for Emergence Studies would not be confined to studying “emergence” as a theoretical curiosity. It would ground itself in the lived transformations of contemporary science—using astronomy and geophysics as key case studies, while also drawing lessons applicable to other disciplines, industries, and social systems. By integrating analysis of micro-level choices, macro-level structures, and the feedback loops that connect them, it could become a centre for reimagining how knowledge institutions navigate uncertainty and cultivate futures that are both resilient and inclusive.
Footnote This article has been mostly written by Chatgpt 5.o, though most the prompts were given by the human author. No references are provided: just upload the text to AI and ask for them but double check them. The lead prompt was reading the June issue of the journal A and G, in particular its article by Robert Massey and Sean Mc Winnie titled “Exploring Evolving” which analyses trends in the UK on what the scientists study.