Researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology criticise how the decision to reject the Anthropocene as a geological epoch was reached and call for an independent review
To the Point
Debate over the Anthropocene: In 2024, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) rejected the proposal to recognise the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch, despite decades of research documenting human impacts on the Earth's systems.
Criticism of the process: Researchers of the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology highlight procedural flaws in the rejection, including lack of transparency and an invalid voting process.
Call for Transparency: According to the authors, an internal ethics report examining the disputed proceedings has still not been made publicly available.
In a recent article in Earth's Future, researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology criticise the process by which the Anthropocene was rejected as a new geological epoch in 2024. They call on the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) to disclose relevant documents and submit the decision-making process to an independent review.
A drill core from Crawford Lake was selected by the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) as a reference for defining the proposed Anthropocene epoch. Annual calcite layers on the lakebed allow for precise dating. Around 1950, they show a marked increase in plutonium particles - one of several traces of human impact that serve as geological markers for the Anthropocene.
© Tim Patterson
The term Anthropocene was coined in 2000 and describes humans as a major driver of changes in the Earth system. Since then, the concept has gained importance in science, society, culture and law. The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) proposed formally recognising the Anthropocene as a geological epoch. This proposal was rejected by the IUGS in 2024.
Now, a new commentary paper by authors from the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology calls on the IUGS to fully disclose the relevant documentation, as well as for an independent procedural review of the decision.
The paper documents procedural violations that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the IUGS' decision, the authors argue.
"Our main concern isn't the rejection itself. A proposal can legitimately be rejected," says Georg Schäfer, lead author of the paper. "The issue is that no adequate scientific justification for it was ever published, and serious allegations on procedural inconsistencies remain unaddressed."
Those procedural concerns include a compromised evaluation, in which the Anthropocene Working Group could not address comments or make revisions, and an invalid voting process, in which the majority of votes cast were invalid under the body's rules. An internal ethics report investigating these violations, which the IUGS executive committee did not act upon, remains publicly inaccessible.
"The Anthropocene epoch proposal demands transparency and procedural legitimacy," says Professor Jürgen Renn, founding director of the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology. "If decisions regarding a humanity-induced planetary crisis can be made behind closed doors, with key documents withheld and public communication vague or contradictory, then geoscience's capacity to inform societal understanding of Earth system change is diminished."
